I, too, am hoping to add a Procise (I'm thinking that the 2-cartridge
model would be the best) to the lab. We'll keep the old 470 cranking for
those "huge" and messy samples.
I, though, would like to ask about the HP sequencer. For the most part, I
seem to receive samples on blots or samples that I can easily clean up by
RP HPLC or load unto a Problot cartridge. I get the impression that the
HP sequencer would be great if I have a lot of liquid samples that need
clean up.
In addition, I have heard that the HP has better repetitive yield, hence
you can sequence further, however, it does not have the sensitivity of the
Procise, so you need to start with more material. Generally, I'm pushing
more for a large improvement in sensitivity.
Also, what is the per cycle cost of the two systems--and the cycle time?
I have one large project that will require a lot of N-terminal sequencing
just to ID proteins on gels and we will want quick turn-around and of
course lowest possible cycle cost.
Thanks,
Deb McMillen
Institute of Molecular Biology
University of Oregon
Eugene OR 97403
On Fri, 8 May 1998, Bryan Dunbar wrote:
> Hello folks,
> we have a good chance of obtaining funds to replace one of
> our 9-year old 477a's with a Procise. I don't think the cLc is in the
> running because of having to go back to longer cycle times, but I would
> welcome opinions as to the relative merits of a 1, 2 or 4-cartridge
> model. Is it worth the extra money for the convenience of loading
> several samples at once? or am I missing something?.
> Regards from Scotland,
> Bryan.
> --
> <!DOCTYPE NETSCAPE-Addressbook-file-1>
>
> <!-- This is an automatically generated file.
>
> It will be read and overwritten.
>
> Do Not Edit! -->
>
> <TITLE>Bryan Dunbar's Address book</TITLE>
>
> <H1>Bryan Dunbar's Address book</H1>
>
>
> <DL><p>
>
> <DT><A HREF="mailto:tennie@chem.gla.ac.uk" NICKNAME="tennie">Tennie
> Videler</A>
>
> </DL><p>
>