Thomas,
The problem with tritium is isotope exchange. Even if you think it is low
likely, you should prove it experimentally, otherwise the isotope would be
distributed all over your test organism. That's why carbon is preferred.
On 01/06/2001, Thomas Andersen wrote:
> I'm getting ready to look at the biodistribution of a synthetic peptide, and it seems to me that incorporation of tritium-labeled valine is my best bet. Using 3,4-T labeled valine, I would
> generate a peptide from which exchange of tritium would be extremely unlikely. And I can get it hot enough, and certainly much hotter than with 14-C. And it is much more affordable than other
> isotopes.
> Yet in looking in the literature, I don't find many instances in which tritium-labeled peptides are used for this purpose, and find more 14 C or even 35-S labeled peptides.
> Am I missing something here? Is there some reason I have not thought about for avoiding use of tritium for making a radio labeled peptide for use in biodistribution studies?
> Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated.
> Tom
> ____________________________
> Thomas T. Andersen, Ph.D.
> Assistant Dean
> Albany Medical College
> Albany, NY 12208
> 518 262-5253
> 518 262-5183 fax
> anderst@mail.amc.edu
Vladimir Titov
Bokiron Ltd., Moscow, Russia
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 21 2001 - 14:17:19 EST