Just to comment that you can indeed set up the XL to see the unlabelled cells. I usually set them to occupy the entire first decade. They have a broader distribution as you work in the noise range whilst I understand that BD uses an offset which leads to a smaller distribution in the first decade. Having worked on BD and Coulter instruments I would not say that they are more or less difficult to compensate, neither that one or the other is easier to use or more or less sensitive to fluorescence. It depends more on what you are used to work with. I contribute to the regular confusion by plotting forward scatter on the Y-axis and sidescatter on the X-axis and both in log - which scares the hell out of most users of either type of instrument as it is unfamiliar to them. To be even more provocative I thought you might want to have a look at the DAKO/Partec hybrid that might feel even more unfamiliar but is said to offer full automatisation including the addition of antibodies to the sample (even if they are from a different manufacturer). I'm looking forward to the first feedback on that instrument. Happy choice Gerhard -----Original Message----- From: Eric Miller [SMTP:e.miller@icrf.icnet.uk] Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 1999 2:15 PM To: Cytometry Mailing List Subject: FACScaliber vs Coulter XL:summary of replies Here is my summary of opinions from round the cytometry group: thanks folks! PS. these are only opinions I recieved: my own views are not included! Approximately 70% of responders favoured FACScaliber. The rest preferred Coulter, apart from one responder who used a MoFlo and liked it very much. FACS pros: Negative population is shown as a discreet population More 4-colour reagents are available Machine and computer are faster in use. Less of a learning curve in upgrading from FACscan Easier to use Good technical backup Upgradable to sorting and dual laser FACS cons: More expensive Coulter XL pros: Well developed data acquisition system Superior fluidics(sample acquisition can be halted without wasting sample) Gating can be altered during acquisition Good technical and service support Good interface for clinical samples Cheaper than FACS Coulter cons: No upgrade to sorting Not as good with dim fluorescence Negative population not displayed -leading to difficulty in setting compensation MoFlo pros: Speed of sorting (c. 20-40,000 cells/sec) Simple design Easy adjustments MoFlo cons: Smaller user base No UK office No local knowledge of machine
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Apr 03 2002 - 11:53:39 EST