Automatic DNA Seqencer - which one is better?

Zach zachnilsen at
Sun Sep 12 10:12:13 EST 2004

Hi Anne:
Sorry for taking so much time to answer your question.  As I'm new to
the field, I had to ask around.  The consensus is that you may get a
lot of sequencing done at core facilities or at commercial labs for
the money you would spend on purchasing and maintaining the ABI 310. 
Please follow these rules with commercial companies:

1. You should get all the original traces (chromatogram files from the
sequencer) and not just the consensus sequence (text).
2. The sequences should start at the most 10 bases downstream from the
sequencing primers.
3. The sequence has to be complete on both strands and have very few

I will start using the ABI 3100 the first week of October, so I will
probably not deal with commercial companies.

I could not get consistent information on what software should be used
to proofread traces.  Several people recommended BioEdit, GeneStudio,
Chromas, and DNASIS.  Hopefully, someone more experienced than I will
have a suggestion or I will make a new post asking for comments.  I
posted a question to on sequence format conversion
software, but somehow my posting did not appear.  The
group seems to be dead, at least on the UGA server.


bounty at (Anna) wrote in message news:<29f2499d.0409090415.e348395 at>...
> zachnilsen at (Zach) wrote in message news:<17bb234a.0409081709.39844cab at>...
> > We have the ABI 377 sequencer and it's a pain to use.  I would not
> > recommend this outdated technology to anyone.
> > 
> > Shortly, I'm going to use the 16 capillary ABI 3100 that is available
> > in the lab across the hall.  Fellow students say that it requires
> > minimal effort to get great sequences without going through the pain
> > to cast gels and load samples manually.  There is no well-to-well
> > leakage, because each sample runs in a separate capillary.
> > 
> Hi Zach,
> I have a little costs a fortune... What do you think
> about ABI PRISM 310? Is that very bad? and old? Do you know any more
> sequencers? More automated of course.
> Thanks a lot,
> Anne

More information about the Methods mailing list