klenchin at facstaff.REMOVE_TO_REPLY.wisc.edu
Sat Oct 3 12:48:25 EST 1998
In article <zjons-0110980824110001 at 126.96.36.199>, zjons at vetbio.unizh.ch (Zophonias O. Jonsson) wrote:
:In article <6utt2s$3qse$1 at news.doit.wisc.edu>,
:klenchin at facstaff.REMOVE_TO_REPLY.wisc.edu (Dima Klenchin) wrote:
:> Bio-Rad or Pierce. The latter is MUCH better in my experience.
: Been using the Bio-Rad assay for years now without problems. What makes
:Pierce so much better, Dima? Why should I change?
1. No need to dilute/filter
3. [for a "Plus" version] extended linear range of response
1) and 2) mean greater reproducibility. Basically, I have a calibration
curve done over a year ago and it is still exactly the same! In my
experience, this is not true for Bio-Rad's stuff, and certainly is not
true for diluted Bio-Rad stuff (which almost cannot be stored at all).
So I stopped doing calibrations at all (except for unusual cases of wierd
buffers or large volumes). This, together with no filtration, results in
me using MUCH less reagent, making Pierce stuff effectively cheaper
(nominally, Bio-Rad is ~ 1.5 less expensive).
More information about the Proteins