QUOTE (sanjiun @ Nov 16 2009, 02:59 AM)

According to the previous experiments, the expression of the gene suppose to aid in cell migration. Sometimes, I get less transfected cells migrate in wells with chemoattractant; sometimes, I get more transfected cells migrate in Fibronectin wells but not in FBS wells...
Hi Sanjiun,
I do not get the sentence I have quoted. As I unterstand it, you have all wells coated with fibronectin and then some have FBS as chemoatractant in the lower chamber; and I assume some don't (as negative control). What do you mean you have wells with fibronectin and others with FBS?
For what I have heard, it is true that migration assays use to have a huge variability. If you have already selected the transfected cells and the expression efficacy is similar for all of them, I do not know what other factors you could influence.
But in any case I suggest you to repeat the question opening a new threat with a more specific titel. It will make it more visible and you may have more answers

QUOTE (Radar)
When we aspire the medium, we produce a scratch in the culture. We have tried with glass Pasteur pipette and with Gilson pipettes. The empty area is only very slowly occupied by this kind of cells. Is there any system for avoiding it?
That was my own question, and I think I have found the answer. Something quite simple:
we take the Transwell insert out of the lower chamber, so we control much better the position of the Pasteur pipette and we can aspirate the liquid from the wall by capilarity. We have started the assays in that way, I will tell you if this is the final solution.
The next question is how to measure the viability of the cells. We are using the XTT protocol, but for doing the measurement we should trypsinize the cells, and up to now the efficacy is not very good. I will look in the forum if someone else asked the same question, if not I may open a new thread. Unles in the meantime someone answers here