I'll give my backing to the Nanodrop as well. I've used it in two different labs, for general yield checking use as well as prior to ITC experiments, and haven't found there to be any issues.
That said, I've also used cuvettes, and I find that one the whole, cuvette-derived and nanodrop-derived measurements are comparable. I wouldn't touch Bradford with a barge-pole. I've found it to be wildly inaccurate for certain proteins I've handled, where as the OD280 measurements have been fine. Dave ============================ David C. Briggs PhD Father, Structural Biologist and Sceptic ============================ University of Manchester E-mail: david.c.bri...@manchester.ac.uk ============================ http://manchester.academia.edu/DavidBriggs (v.sensible) http://xtaldave.wordpress.com/ (sensible) http://xtaldave.posterous.com/ (less sensible) Twitter: @xtaldave Skype: DocDCB ============================ On 16 June 2011 21:15, Quyen Hoang <qqho...@gmail.com> wrote: > We also have not experienced any problems with a Nanodrop 2000C. > No one in my touched the two boxes of Bradford and BCA kits that we have, > because we have been very happy with the Nanodrop. > Quyen > _______________________________ > Quyen Hoang, Ph.D > Assistant Professor > Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, > Stark Neurosciences Research Institute > Indiana University School of Medicine > 635 Barnhill Drive, Room MS0013D > Indianapolis, Indiana 46202-5122 > Phone: 317-274-4371 > Fax: 317-274-4686 > email: qqho...@iupui.edu > Website: www.hoanglab.com > > > On Jun 16, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Francis E Reyes wrote: > > Never had problems with evaporation (and this is in the relatively dry > climate of Denver, CO, especially in the winter when the relative humidity > is in the low 20%). > > Using the Thermo Scientific Nanodrop 2000c. > > We use it also as a prerequisite for ITC, which can be very sensitive to > proper concentrations. > > F > > > On Jun 16, 2011, at 1:15 PM, Arnon Lavie wrote: > > Dear fellow crystallographers - a question about spectrophotometers for > protein concentration determination. > > We are so last millennium - using Bradford reagent/ 1 ml cuvette for protein > conc. determination. > > We have been considering buying a Nanodrop machine (small volume, no > dilution needed, fast, easy). > > However, while testing our samples using a colleague's machine, we have > gotten readings up to 100% different to our Bradford assay (all fully > purified proteins). For example, Bradford says 6 mg/ml, Nanodrop 3 mg/ml. So > while it is fun/easy to use the Nanodrop, I am not sure how reliable are the > measurements (your thoughts?). > > So QUESTION 1: What are people's experience regarding the correlation > between Nanodrop and Bradford? > > While researching the Nanodrop machine, I heard about the Implen > NanoPhotmeter Pearl. > > So Question 2: Is the Pearl better/worse/same as the Nanodrop for our > purpose? > > Thank you for helping us to advance to the next millennium, even if it is > nearly a dozen years late. > > Arnon > > -- > > *********************************************************** > > Arnon Lavie, Professor > > Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics > > University of Illinois at Chicago > > 900 S. Ashland Ave. > > Molecular Biology Research Building, Room 1108 (M/C 669) > > Chicago, IL 60607 > > U.S.A. > > Tel: (312) 355-5029 > > Fax: (312) 355-4535 > > E-mail: la...@uic.edu > > http://www.uic.edu/labs/lavie/ > > *********************************************************** > >
