Unconfigured Ad

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • moedog45
    Junior Member
    • Feb 2012
    • 4

    DNA loss on Bioanalyzer

    About two weeks ago I sheared some gDNA samples on the Covaris E210 and purified them with AMPure beads, as instructed by the SureSelect XT protocol. I measured the samples on the Bioanalyzer 2100 immediately following clean-up and received good peaks at the right area. However, I re-measured the samples as a positive control and I see that even though the peaks are still present for my sample, they are much shorter and it appears I have lost some gDNA.

    My first instinct is to consider this nuclease contamination, but if this were the case, wouldn't I not see any evidence of DNA on the Bioanalyzer? I'm also wondering if I lost DNA following the freeze-thaw cycle the samples underwent, for they were stored at -20 degrees Celsius. Does anyone else have any ideas about what could be causing this DNA loss, as well as any suggestions about how I should prevent it? Thanks!
  • ECO
    --Site Admin--
    • Oct 2007
    • 1360

    #2
    What's the original sample source (organism and if applicable, tissue) and purification method? How much shorter is shorter? Did the whole peak move

    Nuclease contamination is a possibility. Freeze-thaw problems are very unlikely in my experience, especially if you're observing a dramatic change in sample quality from a single cycle.

    I always suspect the Bioanalyzer. =] Any quantitation method that relies on pipetting of 1ul is by definition a ballpark method (unless you run several dilutions/reps etc).

    Comment

    • moedog45
      Junior Member
      • Feb 2012
      • 4

      #3
      The original source was tissue, and the DNA was purified with Agencourt AMPure XP magnetic beads. The peak is shorter by about 15 fluorescence units, but the peak itself did not move.

      I talked to tech support about this and they told me if there is only one visible peak and the peak size hasn't moved to a smaller size range, then I shouldn't worry about nuclease contamination. Tech support then validated your opinion, ECO, and said it was likely discrepancy between the two reads. I guess storing nucleic material in water for a long time rather than a buffer makes me a bit queasy.

      Thanks for the feedback!

      Comment

      • vtosha
        Member
        • May 2010
        • 36

        #4
        Do you measure concentration of your samples with another technics? Bioanalyzer not reliable for measuring of concentration.

        Comment

        Latest Articles

        Collapse

        • SEQadmin2
          Proteomic Platforms: How to Choose the Right Analytical Strategy to Improve Detection and Clinical Applications
          by SEQadmin2


          Proteomics platforms are evolving rapidly, with advances in mass spectrometry and affinity-based approaches expanding what researchers can detect and at what scale. As the field moves toward deeper proteome coverage and clinical applications, scientists face an increasingly complex landscape of tools. This article will explore how researchers are navigating these choices to find the right platform for their work.

          The systematic characterization of the human proteome has
          ...
          07-20-2026, 11:48 AM
        • SEQadmin2
          Advanced Sequencing Platforms Tackle Neuroscience’s Toughest Genomics Problems
          by SEQadmin2



          Genomics studies in neuroscience face a special challenge due to the brain’s complexity and scarcity of samples. Mapping changes in cell type and state using conventional next-generation sequencing methods remains challenging. Advances in technologies like single-cell sequencing, spatial transcriptomics, and long-read sequencing have opened the door to deeper studies of the brain and diseases like Alzheimer’s, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), and schizophrenia.
          ...
          07-09-2026, 11:10 AM
        • SEQadmin2
          Cancer Drug Resistance: The Lingering Barrier to Rising Survival
          by SEQadmin2



          Cancer survival rates have significantly increased in the last few decades in the United States, reaching a combined 70% 5-year survival rate by 2021. Behind this number, there are years of research to find new therapies, drug targets, and early detection methods. But there is one core challenge that keeps slowing down these advances, and it’s about drug resistance.

          There is no single reason why many patients don’t respond to treatment as expected. Cancer is...
          07-08-2026, 05:17 AM

        ad_right_rmr

        Collapse

        News

        Collapse

        Topics Statistics Last Post
        Started by SEQadmin2, Today, 11:41 AM
        0 responses
        8 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-20-2026, 11:10 AM
        0 responses
        21 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-13-2026, 10:26 AM
        0 responses
        34 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Started by SEQadmin2, 07-09-2026, 10:04 AM
        0 responses
        44 views
        0 reactions
        Last Post SEQadmin2  
        Working...