Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log in with Windows Live Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Submit your paper to J Biol Methods today!
Photo
- - - - -

Qubit™ Quantitation Kit


  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Maddie

Maddie

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
3
Neutral

Posted 15 September 2010 - 06:26 AM

Hi everyone,

Does someone here uses the Qubit™Quantitation Kit from Invitrogen to quantify DNA?
I'm interested in bying it but I'd like to have feedback from people who use it if possible.
Thanks

Maddie
Theory is when we know everything and nothing is working. Practice is when everything is working and nobody knows why. Here, we combine theory and practice. Nothing is working and nobody knows why.

A. Einstein

#2 hobglobin

hobglobin

    Growing old is mandatory, growing up is optional...

  • Global Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,531 posts
99
Excellent

Posted 15 September 2010 - 06:46 AM

Hi everyone,

Does someone here uses the Qubit™Quantitation Kit from Invitrogen to quantify DNA?
I'm interested in bying it but I'd like to have feedback from people who use it if possible.
Thanks

Maddie

We use it regularly, but actually I've not really an idea how exact the values are. The advantages are that it is really easy to use, it's very fast to use and handling errors seem unlikely. Due to the different fluorescent dyes, it really measures only what you need (i.e. DNA, RNA or proteins) due to specifically binding of the different dyes.
But there are of course several disadvantages: Pipetting errors are more likely compared to other systems as you have to make dilution steps (though in other spectrophotometers too), the fluorescent dyes are expensive (you need different ones for different probes and concentrations; the tubes may be too expensive), you won't get an idea about purity of the samples (by calculating different ratios).

Here is a of course heavily biased comparison by Invitrogen.

One must presume that long and short arguments contribute to the same end. - Epicurus
...except casandra's that belong to the funniest, most interesting and imaginative (or over-imaginative?) ones, I suppose.

That is....if she posts at all.


#3 Maddie

Maddie

    Veteran

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 289 posts
3
Neutral

Posted 15 September 2010 - 07:25 AM

We use it regularly, but actually I've not really an idea how exact the values are. The advantages are that it is really easy to use, it's very fast to use and handling errors seem unlikely. Due to the different fluorescent dyes, it really measures only what you need (i.e. DNA, RNA or proteins) due to specifically binding of the different dyes.
But there are of course several disadvantages: Pipetting errors are more likely compared to other systems as you have to make dilution steps (though in other spectrophotometers too), the fluorescent dyes are expensive (you need different ones for different probes and concentrations; the tubes may be too expensive), you won't get an idea about purity of the samples (by calculating different ratios).

Here is a of course heavily biased comparison by Invitrogen.


Thanks :) . The reason I want to try it is because the nanodrop is totally inaccurate when it comes to low DNA concentrations. Also the numbers are biaised by ssDNA and, more problematic for me, by humic acids. Do you know if the dyes from the Qubit would bind to humic acids?
I agree that the dilution can bring extra errors but what I like here is that you can use more than 1 or 2ul. I doubt I'd have 20ul to waste for that but hopefully 5 to 8ul would be enough to get something above 100pg/ul.
So I guess the instrument measures total amount of dsDNA and then divides the # by the volume you used to get a concentration, right?
Concerning the fluorometer, is it good quality? Did it ever break?
Theory is when we know everything and nothing is working. Practice is when everything is working and nobody knows why. Here, we combine theory and practice. Nothing is working and nobody knows why.

A. Einstein

#4 i.m

i.m

    member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 29 May 2011 - 03:36 PM


We use it regularly, but actually I've not really an idea how exact the values are. The advantages are that it is really easy to use, it's very fast to use and handling errors seem unlikely. Due to the different fluorescent dyes, it really measures only what you need (i.e. DNA, RNA or proteins) due to specifically binding of the different dyes.
But there are of course several disadvantages: Pipetting errors are more likely compared to other systems as you have to make dilution steps (though in other spectrophotometers too), the fluorescent dyes are expensive (you need different ones for different probes and concentrations; the tubes may be too expensive), you won't get an idea about purity of the samples (by calculating different ratios).

Here is a of course heavily biased comparison by Invitrogen.


Thanks :) . The reason I want to try it is because the nanodrop is totally inaccurate when it comes to low DNA concentrations. Also the numbers are biaised by ssDNA and, more problematic for me, by humic acids. Do you know if the dyes from the Qubit would bind to humic acids?
I agree that the dilution can bring extra errors but what I like here is that you can use more than 1 or 2ul. I doubt I'd have 20ul to waste for that but hopefully 5 to 8ul would be enough to get something above 100pg/ul.
So I guess the instrument measures total amount of dsDNA and then divides the # by the volume you used to get a concentration, right?
Concerning the fluorometer, is it good quality? Did it ever break?

Hello!
I recently started using the Qubic to quntify RNA extracted from soil samples. In most cases it was ok, but for some samples though I had a good band on the gel the reading was really low to count. Same happend after repeated these samples. It so happens that these ones where the "dirtiest" after the extraction, with the pellet looking rather dark.So i was wondering if humic acids may be the problem. Have you (or anybody else)found out if the dyes can bind to the humic acids?

#5 i.m

i.m

    member

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
0
Neutral

Posted 29 May 2011 - 03:37 PM


We use it regularly, but actually I've not really an idea how exact the values are. The advantages are that it is really easy to use, it's very fast to use and handling errors seem unlikely. Due to the different fluorescent dyes, it really measures only what you need (i.e. DNA, RNA or proteins) due to specifically binding of the different dyes.
But there are of course several disadvantages: Pipetting errors are more likely compared to other systems as you have to make dilution steps (though in other spectrophotometers too), the fluorescent dyes are expensive (you need different ones for different probes and concentrations; the tubes may be too expensive), you won't get an idea about purity of the samples (by calculating different ratios).

Here is a of course heavily biased comparison by Invitrogen.


Thanks :) . The reason I want to try it is because the nanodrop is totally inaccurate when it comes to low DNA concentrations. Also the numbers are biaised by ssDNA and, more problematic for me, by humic acids. Do you know if the dyes from the Qubit would bind to humic acids?
I agree that the dilution can bring extra errors but what I like here is that you can use more than 1 or 2ul. I doubt I'd have 20ul to waste for that but hopefully 5 to 8ul would be enough to get something above 100pg/ul.
So I guess the instrument measures total amount of dsDNA and then divides the # by the volume you used to get a concentration, right?
Concerning the fluorometer, is it good quality? Did it ever break?

Hello!
I recently started using the Qubit to quntify RNA extracted from soil samples. In most cases it was ok, but for some samples though I had a good band on the gel the reading was really low to count. Same happend after repeated these samples. It so happens that these ones where the "dirtiest" after the extraction, with the pellet looking rather dark.So i was wondering if humic acids may be the problem. Have you (or anybody else)found out if the dyes can bind to the humic acids?




Home - About - Terms of Service - Privacy - Contact Us

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.