Greetings one and all in flow land.
I would like to share an experiencce which although is not flow
cytometric in nature, may be of interest to my colleagues, I will be as
brief as possible.
Our laboratory has recently invested in a DNA gel
documentation/quantification system -the Kodak EDAS 40 system which is
marketed in the UK by Amersham, basicaly a digital camera and quantification
software.
>From the outset I noticed that the images obtained of DNA gels photographed
on an UV transiluminator were slightly grainy, especially on long exposures.
Now, to cut to the chase, the setup includes a long-pass interference filter
as the final optical element on the camera (to exclude the excitation
light), this filter was found to be mounted with the glass substrate toward
the UV source and the interference layer toward the camera, unmounting the
filter and placing it on the transilluminator in its supplied orientation
resulted in the filter glowing with a cheerful orange-red fluorescence which
disapeared when reversed. In my opinion the images obtained with the filter
reversed have a better signal to noise.
I don't wish to appear to be knocking either Kodak or Amersham; in
fact both companies have been very helpful in resolving this situation;
Kodak have agreed to supply a reversed filter and Amersham have been supportive.
I would be interested however to hear from any others out there with
this system as to what their experience is.
Thankyou for your time.
Arnold.
------------------------------
Arnold Richard Pizzey
Department of Haematology
98 Chenies Mews
London WC1E 6HX
(044) 0171 209 6234
fax: 0171 209 6222
-----------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:49:56 EST