Joe Trotter wrote: > > Don't forget that the refractive indices of the sheath buffer and sample buffer > need to be close for good optics. Otherwise, you have what amounts to a dynamic > lens at the water/saline interaface interfering with the light collection. With > strong signals as in most assays for DNA in mammalian cells, the loss of CV is > probably not too serious. With yeast, for example, matching buffers is more > essential. > > My son did a science fair project on this very issue several years ago. He used > glutaraldehyde fixed Chicken Red Blood Cells suspended in either water or in > saline. He ran both on a FACS Calibur with 1) water as a sheath buffer, and 2) > saline as a sheath buffer. He then compared CVs and the quality of the data. Try it > yourself and draw your own conclusions. Joe: I'm sorry but my reply is off-flow topic and I can't resist... Joe, but didn't you have any parents screaming 'bloody murder' as your son was provided with an "unfair advantage"? My colleague did. His daughter measured serum cholesterol in wild-type and ApoE knock-out mice as a function of diet (lab chow vs potato chips) and time. Holy cow, did the other parents (down yonder in Texas, in the boonies of south Houston) cry fowl and cry loudly. They howled so much that the school decreed no sampling or anything on or from animals as not all students would have equal access. Your cat or dog, that's another story... BTW - did your son win? Back to flow... I'll try the comparison between water and saline. Sounds like it might be fun. Next time it needs its 'monthly' cleaning. David =========== David L. Haviland, Ph.D., Asst. Prof. Immunology University of Texas - Houston, H.S.C. Institute of Molecular Medicine, R907 2121 W. Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX 77030 713.500.2413-Voice//713.500.2424-FAX ----------------- If everything seems to be going so well, you have obviously overlooked something. ==========
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 10 2001 - 19:31:14 EST