Sam and all
That is the M@LDI MS from Micromass (assuming that the original question was
misspelled = Moldi). As far as accuracy let me tell you how I run things.
I START at 50ppm when I search for matching peaks in the database - the
machine is so accurate that there really is no reason to look at anything
higher - it would only confuse matters and give more possibilities. Now
saying that when I make an identification the majority of matching peaks are
usually much less than that in their deltas. My rate of successful
identification is variable but on average between
40-60%. My greatest frustration at the moment is probably those proteins I
can cut and cut and cut out of the gel and never find a peptide from - I
believe it has to do with the digest so I keep on trying different
variables.
Hope this is what you are looking for - I'm not a MStrist - but a molecular
biologist so when you ask about accuracy - this is what I look at!
Martha
-----Original Message-----
From: Samuel Chun-lap Lo [ABCT] [mailto:bcsamlo@inet.polyu.edu.hk]
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 9:39 PM
To: abrf@aecom.yu.edu; mjuhl@iupucbio1.iupui.edu
Subject: RE: Comment on different Mass-Spec
Dear Martha,
Thanks for your info. However, I need your clarification for the MALDI. Is
that M@ALDI, the MS from Micromass?
What is the accuracy of the machine? What is your rate of successfully
identifying proteins on your large format gels?
Sam
>>> "Martha Juhl" <mjuhl@iupucbio1.iupui.edu> 03/09/01 06:36am >>>
We run 40 large format gels a week in our lab. We purchased the "Proteome
Works" system last fall which is the Biorad spotcutter, Packard Massprep
Station and the MALDI. I don't cut 40 gels a week but I am one person doing
the cutting to identification. The spotcutter is a great piece of machinery
that is pretty simple and straightforward - just have to beware of leaving
the same gel out too long - it's going to shrink no matter. It is great to
have this piece 1)because then I don't have to cut them by hand and
2)sometimes you can no longer see what were originally faint spots that
have become fainter - and in these cases I think the robot has a better
chance of cutting the right spot than I do. The Massprep station is also a
great thing. There are alot of people out there still discussing
dehydrating gel pieces and losing gel pieces - these are not issues with
this system. You do lose gel pieces but at a rate of about one per three-96
well plates - certainly tolerable here. The MALDI is as well a good piece
of machinery. I can certainly recommend this system and would be happy to
give you any more information if you need it.
Martha Juhl
Molecular Anatomy Laboratory
IUPUI Columbus
4601 Central
Columbus, IN 47203
812-348-7268
-----Original Message-----
From: Association of Biomolecular Resource Facilities
[mailto:abrf-request@aecom.yu.edu]On Behalf Of yoki butt
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2001 11:24 PM
To: Recipients of ABRF List
Subject: Comment on different Mass-Spec
Hi,
Our group is considering to purchase a MALDI-TOF for
2D-gel analysis. We are contemplating whether we
should purchase a 2 year old model of ABI-DE-STR or a
Bruker Biflex III with all the sample labelling
robotics from genomic solutions. May I have some
comments about the performance of DE-STR (both
hardware and software support) vs Biflex III. How
about Micromass MOLDI.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 10:20:49 EDT