I recently saw this same "ad", and was frankly disgusted by its
unscientific nature. I would be embarassed to show something like
this to people. There is no need to say more than to note that there
were no axis values under the "digital" data acquired from the BD
instrument (but there are, under the MoFlo data!); hence, a direct
comparison is completely irrelevant. This is worse than the fuzzy
math arguments we were peppered with during the last election. I
sincerely hope that the manufacturers do not follow the political
arena's lead in trying to sling mud ("negative" advertising).
In our preliminary evaluation of the digital electronics, we get as
good or better resolution, separation, and sensitivity using the
digital signals as compared to the analog signals on the same bench
(i.e., DiVa vs. SE). In a preliminary comparison of some 8-color
samples with those analyzed at our original machine at Stanford
(which uses the Cytomation electronics), performance was quite
similar. I am confident that the digital signal processing will
provide significantly better data as we learn to do better estimation
of intensity based on signal shapes... but that's a future topic.
There is NO DOUBT that digital electronics, whether it be Coulter,
Cytomation, or BD is the wave of the future--for the good reason that
the data we will get will be far superior.
There is also no doubt that none of the manufacturers can avoid
fundamental laws of physics or mathematics. They are all working
with the same tools, and they all have bright people working for
them. I just wish the sales & marketing forces would show the same
level of integrity and intelligence.
In comparing instrument manufacturers, one should probably consider
other aspects than performance, since they will likely all perform
similarly in terms of sensitivity, power, and sort speed (something
that will soon be tested). Specifically, one should strongly
consider aspects such as support (both hardware and applications),
software, and any financial details.
mr
At 6:58 PM -0400 5/16/01, zucker.robert@EPAMAIL.EPA.GOV wrote:
>On a recent advertisement ( post card) by MoFlo they implied that digital
>processing of data (DIVA) was not as good as the MO FLo type of analysis. I
>thought that digital processing of Coulter and BD was superior to the older
>designed electronics. Although the distributions from MoFlo do indeed look
>superior to a BD Vantage ( postcard), the Cytomation people are implying
>that digital electronics are inferior to their current circuitry. Any
>opinions on this claim of the new BD equipment with digital electronics as
>being inferior. Now I am confused as I thought digital was the new and
>improved way to do flow cytometry. Is this just an advertisement from a
>company that does not want to get on the digital bandwagon or is it because
>they do not have it and don't want to redesign their equipment with it just
>yet. I don't want to get into a debate on the virtues of the different
>manufacturers but it is important to clarify this point for the flow
>cytometry community.
>Bob
>
>Robert M. Zucker, PhD
>U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
>MD 72
>National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory
>Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, 27711
>Tel: 919-541-1585; fax 919-541-4017
>e-mail: zucker.robert@epa.gov
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jan 05 2003 - 19:01:19 EST