Calibur vs. XL
Robert Pyle (pyle@smtpgw.kfshrc.edu.sa)
Tue, 22 Oct 96 09:37:57 SAU
I am a relatively new member of this mailing list and I am sure that
there has been previous discussion on the Becton Dickinson Calibur and
the Coulter XL. We currently have two FACScans and one Coulter XL in
the laboratory and are in discussion with both vendors over
acquisition of two new machines on a reagent rental/purchase
agreement. Having had the FACScans and the XL operational, side by
side for over two years, I am inclined to go with Becton Dickinson, if
for no other reason than the more advanced software development that
BD has to offer. Also, we are interested in the sorting option that
the Calibur offers that the XL does not. I would be very interested
to hear any comments on experience with either machine and what your
thoughts would be on this acquisition.
Also, I would very much appreciate comment on the mechanical sorting
methodology of the Calibur versus the usual electrostatic sorting
methods of other instruments. Our applications are purely clinical in
nature and will not require a large volume of sorted cells. We will
sort only for morphologic confirmation and perhaps PCR purposes
requiring fewer cells than would be expected of an electrostatic
sorting instrument. Also, the ease of sorting with the FACSort seems
to be carried over to the Calibur.
Any comments along either of these lines would be most helpful.
CD ROM Vol 2 was produced by staff at the Purdue University Cytometry Laboratories
and distributed free of charge as an educational service to the cytometry community.
If you have any comments please direct them to Dr. J. Paul Robinson, Professor & Director, PUCL,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907. Phone:(317) 494-0757; FAX (317) 494-0517; Web http://www.cyto.purdue.edu
EMAIL robinson@flowcyt.cyto.purdue.edu
