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
- - - - -

0.2 vs 0.45um filter for clearing retro- or lentiviral supernatant?

Filter Lentivirus Retrovirus supernatant

  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1 Epigeneticist

Epigeneticist

    Enthusiast

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
5
Neutral

Posted 25 March 2014 - 02:02 PM

When collecting the supernatant after packaging virus in a cell line such as 293T, why do most protocols ask for a 0.45um filter? I understand that filtering is done to eliminate cells and cellular debris so a 0.45um is all that is needed. Also, it should also be done with a filter that has low protein binding. However, what is the harm of using a 0.2um filter? It seems like a 0.2um filter would provide the added benefit of filtering out any bacteria if contamination did occur during the virus production. Any thoughts on this?

 

Thanks!



#2 mdfenko

mdfenko

    an elder

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,788 posts
132
Excellent

Posted 26 March 2014 - 03:45 AM

because 0.45 is sufficient and 0.2 will take more time to complete. it's for convenience.


talent does what it can
genius does what it must
i do what i get paid to do

#3 Epigeneticist

Epigeneticist

    Enthusiast

  • Active Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 97 posts
5
Neutral

Posted 26 March 2014 - 05:22 AM

because 0.45 is sufficient and 0.2 will take more time to complete. it's for convenience.

 

Thanks! Never thought of it in the context of time efficiency. 

 

 

Does anyone know which size of filter will clear human or mouse cell debris?







Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Filter, Lentivirus, Retrovirus, supernatant

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

©1999-2013 Protocol Online, All rights reserved.