To estimate the DNA quantity on an agarose gel stained with EtBr, should I compare the intensity of my band of interest with the standard band of a similar size, or with the standard band of a similar intensity (assuming there is no standard band that is of similar size and intensity).
Estimation of DNA Quantity on an Agarose Gel
Started by yoshi, Dec 27 2010 10:34 PM
5 replies to this topic
#1
Posted 27 December 2010 - 10:34 PM
#2
Posted 29 December 2010 - 08:20 AM
just use an marker with bands of different size and intensities
regards,
p
regards,
p
#3
Posted 29 December 2010 - 10:39 PM
pDNA, on 29 December 2010 - 08:20 AM, said:
just use an marker with bands of different size and intensities
regards,
p
regards,
p
So with which of the bands of the marker would you recommend that I compare? The one that is of similar size to my band, or the one that is of similar intensity?
#4
Posted 30 December 2010 - 09:58 AM
best would be to compare similar size and intensity. But this might not be the case always. One would have to load different amounts of DNA ladder (with conc. eg. 2 log DNA - NEB) and compare intensities.
good luck
good luck
#5
Posted 30 December 2010 - 12:11 PM
And be sure to use a good software. Anyway this is a suboptimal approach, though cheap, as it measures only the end-point which can differ in every reaction due to several reasons (such as deactivation of Taq, shortage of nucleotide substrates and primers, etc).
State-of-the-art an much more exact is qPCR, as the here the exponential and therefore quantifiable part of the reaction is used. But it's expensive and you need a real-time machine.
You might try a competitive PCR as alternative.
State-of-the-art an much more exact is qPCR, as the here the exponential and therefore quantifiable part of the reaction is used. But it's expensive and you need a real-time machine.
You might try a competitive PCR as alternative.
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.
#6
Posted 01 January 2011 - 10:34 PM
Thanks peeps!













