David,
No - we never got any complaints that I was aware of - it was more to let him have an
insight into what flow was like than anything. The CRBC's were commercially available -
and any other kids that wanted to come up from his middle school and run something
certainly could have. The cost was minimal - and no animals were involded. The focus was
on refractive indices and optics, and the whole thing was triggered by someone's post on
this list a few years ago. As I recall, it started as a dinner topic. I remarked how
someone posted a note advocating water as sheath, and then said something to the effect
that they must not be too interested in great scatter. My son asked, "Why"? So, I invited
him to come by the lab after school and see - you know, "a picture is worth a thousand
words". He advanced a round or two, the most valuable thing was he got some insight into
what flow cytometry was like.
Regards,
Joe
"David L. Haviland" wrote:
> 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