Go Back   SEQanswers > General

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
TapeStation 4200 MesutOezil Sample Prep / Library Generation 1 10-13-2015 03:11 PM
Agilent TapeStation vs. Qubit: RNA concentration. evobio Introductions 3 08-03-2015 04:55 AM
Agilent TapeStation 2200? ECO Sample Prep / Library Generation 20 02-07-2015 01:58 PM
Interpretation of Agilent Tapestation weeseda Sample Prep / Library Generation 9 10-07-2014 11:11 AM
Agilent Bioanalyzer vs AATI fragment analyzer IshSeq General 9 10-01-2014 08:38 PM

Thread Tools
Old 08-11-2017, 09:01 AM   #1
Junior Member
Location: USA

Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 5
Default Agilent 4200 TapeStation Instrument / PerkinElmer LabChip GX Touch 24 / AATI Fragm

Looking for inputs on the "nucleic acid analyzers" for NGS studies. Our lab is planning to purchase either a Agilent 4200 TapeStation Instrument or PerkinElmer LabChip GX Touch 24 or AATI Fragment Analyzer automated CE system. We process anywhere from 1-15 genomic DNA or total RNA samples a day and occasionally upto 96 samples. I checked all three options and can't decide if one is better than the other. At the moment, we have an Agilent bioanalyzer and we are looking for something that does job faster with decent output while keeping the cost reasonable. Any suggestions? Thank you!
Lmathew is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2017, 04:02 PM   #2
Junior Member
Location: Los Angeles, CA

Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 3

Our lab upgraded from a 2200 Tapestation to the 4200 Tapestation.
For the most part, the machine is fine. It is simple to use and can process small and large numbers of samples with some good flexibility. But the machine loses connection often and has had several errors that stopped the machine in the middle of the run. Talking with tech support has not helped as they tend to say it is something we are doing. And their sales reps were not very forthright or honest with us when helping us decide on whether or not to upgrade. They lied right to us on several points and when we brought that up, we were ignored. Good times.
Overall, if I had known what I do now, I wouldn't want to deal with Agilent again.
keithsweatshirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-26-2018, 09:54 AM   #3
Location: MD

Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 11
Question I need the same information

Have you been able to find any information on this? I am looking into the same issues. I have asked a few people who work in genomics cores and they all still use the Agilent Bioanalyzer. I need something that is more high-throughput but still give good results and keeps the cost per sample low. Please let me know what you have found out!!
beki.renberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-07-2018, 06:53 PM   #4
Junior Member
Location: Australia

Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 4

We have the AATI Fragment Analyzer automated CE system. I have been mostly happy with it. One significant service issue in the 2 years we have had it.
You mentioned you want faster results. The AATI is not fast, we have the 12 capillary unit and it will take ~10 minutes hands on time to set up the run and then ~60 mins for each gel (12 samples) and then probably 5 mins to analyse the data. But it it definitely is high throughput and "fast" in terms of hands on time. So you can set up 3 x 96 plates to run (will take about 30 mins) and run over the weekend, come in on Monday all three plates run.
lmj is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2018, 05:44 PM   #5
Junior Member
Location: USA

Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 8
Default LabChip GX

Did anyone used this to quant their amplicon library? Is that reliable? Whether the results are consistent with that measured by qPCR? Thanks
chuanwu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 08:42 AM   #6
Location: Brazil

Join Date: Aug 2015
Posts: 94

We have a 4200 and a very proficient student of mine tried to use it (per Thermo protocol re. Bioanalyzer) to quantify RNAseq libraries, but this didn't prove very reliable; she'd get a very unbalanced number of reads when she mixed libraries in a chip. Quantifying the same samples via qPCR gave much more reliable results. I don't blame the 4200 per se, though; perhaps the issue was uneven fragment lengths by our part. Anyways, qPCR proved to be less affected by experimental variation and that's what we use now.
r.rosati is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2018, 09:07 AM   #7
Junior Member
Location: USA

Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 8

Thank you for letting me know that qPCR quant is more reliable.
chuanwu is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:58 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO