 |
 |
 |
 |
>In response to Sue DeMaggio's message (included below):
>We have a FACScan and a FACStar plus in our lab, and we generally
>find the sensitivity of the sorter significantly less than the
>Scan.
>Not surprising, because the sorter is measuring stream-in-air, and
>the Scan uses an optically coupled cuvette.
About three years ago I had the opportunity to run a
nine bead concoction that Paul Guyre (Dartmouth) was
using to evaluate instrumentation. I ran the mix on
the FACScan and the FACStar Plus on the same day out
of the same tube. I had maximized the alignment on
the StarPlus using the age old method of CRBC's and
when we overlaid the curve from the Scan with that of
the StarPlus they were virtually superimposable. I
know the key was the critical alignment of the sorter,
but it shows that the sensitivity of the instruments is
very close. The nine beads covered a range of over 3.5
decades with the lowest being "blank".
**********************************************************************
*
Keith A. Kelley kelley@mrc.com *
Institute for Research Technologies * "A wink is as good
Miles Research Center * as a nod.........
400 Morgan Lane Ph 203-937-2872 * to a blind horse"
West Haven CT 06516 FAX 203-927-6923 * FACES
*
**********************************************************************
|
|
|
|