Automatic DNA Seqencer - which one is better?

Kyle Legate legatek at
Fri Sep 10 11:32:28 EST 2004

"Duncan Clark" <blackhole at> wrote in message
news:X6H0qECSdCQBFAP6 at
> Historians believe that in newspost
> <17bb234a.0409081709.39844cab at> on Wed, 8 Sep 2004,
> Zach <zachnilsen at> penned the following literary masterpiece:
> >We have the ABI 377 sequencer and it's a pain to use.  I would not
> >recommend this outdated technology to anyone.
> Could be worse. An ALF with a single dye detector only, or what we all
> used to user in ye olde times, gel tanks and 32P radioactive sequencing.
Ahh, the good old days. My supervisor had a rule that you could send a DNA
sample to the core facility for sequencing if you could demonstrate that you
could sequence it yourself first. However, there was no core facility for my
first couple of years as a grad student, and when they first set up
sequencing as a service I could often get the sequence faster if I did it
myself with 32P. I'd send a sample to the core facility anyway in case the
32P approach didn't work, and as a second opinion for regions where there's
ambiguity, and because I thought that if I gave them practise, they would
get faster.

Towards the end of my Ph.D. it was always a lab event if someone was doing
foot- or toe-printing because I was the only one with the experience to
transfer a gel to paper without ripping it. Everyone used the core facility
from the very beginning.

More information about the Methods mailing list