Thank you for your input.
A few more questions if you don't mind.
1. Is there a rule of thumb on minimum dye-stokes-shift a grating-based
instrument can handle?
2. Is there a rule of thumb on minimum sample volume a grating based
instrument can handle?
3. Is there a drop off in demand for sequencers?
"David C. Fritzinger" <dfritzin at nospam.hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:a898qp$5rl$1 at mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk...
> In article <a87bvg$hmo$1 at mercury.hgmp.mrc.ac.uk>, MES
> <walkmori at sover.net> wrote:
>> > Recently I have been told that companies like Applied Biosystems are
moving
> > from optical filters to gratings for spectral filtering.
> >
> > Is it possible to sequence with a grating based instrument?
> >
> > Is the near band rejection high enough?
> >
> > Is the optical energy throughput high enough?
>> Actually, I believe that, ever since the 377, ABI has been using
> gratings for spectral filtering. That's why they call their instruments
> "Prism". It is also why it is so simple to use a number of different
> dye sets in ABI insturments.
>> I believe the answer to all your questions are yes. Both types of
> insturments have advantages. I believe the MD machines, which use
> filters and a confocal microscope for detection are more sensitive,
> while ABIs insturments are easier to set up for different dye sets, and
> easier to use for more than 4 dyes.
>> Hope this helps.
>> Dave Fritzinger
> >
> >
> > ---
>> ---
>
---
