re: that pesky CCC article
T. Vincent Shankey (tshanke@bsd.medctr.luc.edu)
Tue, 29 Oct 1996 10:45:36 -0600 (CST)
On Thu, 24 Oct 1996, Tom Mc Closkey wrote:
>
> I have run those beads on my Elite and was able to resolve all populations.
>
> The apparent discrepancy may actually be stated in the discussion, "The
> reason for the diminished resolution ... could have been due to ...operator
> error."
>
> -------------------------------------
> Name: Tom Mc Closkey
Since its getting cold here in Chicago, and to add a bit more fuel to
that fire... We have run those same pesky beads on our Epics (I call it a
minus V, since it's a 541) and on an XL numerous times, and in each
instance we get separation of the six different bead populations that is
at least comperable to that shown in Fig. 4 (A,B, or D) of that now
famous CCC article (Chance, et al) in both the FITC and PE channels. From
my experience, most flow cytometers that are properly maintained
(including filters that actually filter, clean optics, stable fluidics)
and operated give good separation of these types of beads.
This thread brings up the uncomfortable issue of - how are we EVER going
to have a serious impact on clinical applications if we can't even
overcome the basics?
Vince Shankey
Loyola University Med Cntr.
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
