I second Vaheh,

been using Nanodrops at three different locations and have been happy with them 
plus reproducibility of results. If you have 50 mg/ml you'll need to dilute, 
but we rarely get that high anyhow.

Additionally you safe time. If you had a cuvette based system, you should 
always clean before and after yourself and the time it takes to do that is 
wasted. With the Nanodrop simply use a Kim wipe and EtOH before and H2O after 
your protein followed by EtOH.


On Jun 16, 2011, at 3:43 PM, Oganesyan, Vaheh wrote:

I completely disagree with Filip’s assessment. I’ve been using nanodrop nearly 
5 years and never had inconsistency issues. If you work at reasonable speed (if 
you put a drop there then lower the lever and click measure before you do 
anything else) there will be no issues. At very high concentrations the 
accuracy and therefore consistency may become lower. Concentrations between 5 
and 10 mg/ml should be fine. The instrument is pricey though.


From: CCP4 bulletin board [mailto:CCP4BB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Filip Van 
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 3:34 PM
Subject: Re: [ccp4bb] Nanodrop versus Nanophotomter Pearl versus good old 

Dear Arnon,

the Bradford method is not recommended for accurate measurements.  The readings 
are strongly dependent on the amino acid composition.  A much better method is 
using the absorption at 280nm under denaturing conditions (6M Guanidine), and 
using calculated extinction coefficients based on the composition of mostly 
Tyrosine and Tryptophan residues (+ disulfide bonds).  This method is also old 
(Edelhoch, 1967), but very reliable.

One thing about the nanodrop: smaller volume = more evaporation.  On the demo 
we've had, I was so unimpressed with the precision (>25% variability between 
two consecutive measurement) that we didn't consider this instrument at all.  
So unless you just want a 'rough' estimate, I wouldn't recommend it at all. But 
most respectable spectrophotometers will take cuvettes with 50ul volumes - a 
big step up from 1ml volumes...

Filip Van Petegem

On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Arnon Lavie 
<la...@uic.edu<mailto:la...@uic.edu>> wrote:
Dear fellow crystallographers - a question about spectrophotometers for protein 
concentration determination.

We are so last millennium - using Bradford reagent/ 1 ml cuvette for protein 
conc. determination.

We have been considering buying a Nanodrop machine (small volume, no dilution 
needed, fast, easy).
However, while testing our samples using a colleague's machine, we have gotten 
readings up to 100% different to our Bradford assay (all fully purified 
proteins). For example, Bradford says 6 mg/ml, Nanodrop 3 mg/ml. So while it is 
fun/easy to use the Nanodrop, I am not sure how reliable are the measurements 
(your thoughts?).

So QUESTION 1: What are people's experience regarding the correlation between 
Nanodrop and Bradford?

While researching the Nanodrop machine, I heard about the Implen NanoPhotmeter 
So Question 2: Is the Pearl better/worse/same as the Nanodrop for our purpose?

Thank you for helping us to advance to the next millennium, even if it is 
nearly a dozen years late.


Arnon Lavie, Professor
Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics
University of Illinois at Chicago
900 S. Ashland Ave.
Molecular Biology Research Building, Room 1108 (M/C 669)
Chicago, IL 60607
                            Tel:        (312) 355-5029<tel:%28312%29%20355-5029>
                            Fax:        (312) 355-4535<tel:%28312%29%20355-4535>
                            E-mail:     la...@uic.edu<mailto:la...@uic.edu>

Filip Van Petegem, PhD
Assistant Professor
The University of British Columbia
Dept. of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
2350 Health Sciences Mall - Rm 2.356
Vancouver, V6T 1Z3

phone: +1 604 827 4267
email: filip.vanpete...@gmail.com<mailto:filip.vanpete...@gmail.com>
To the extent this electronic communication or any of its attachments contain 
information that is not in the public domain, such information is considered by 
MedImmune to be confidential and proprietary. This communication is expected to 
be read and/or used only by the individual(s) for whom it is intended. If you 
have received this electronic communication in error, please reply to the 
sender advising of the error in transmission and delete the original message 
and any accompanying documents from your system immediately, without copying, 
reviewing or otherwise using them for any purpose. Thank you for your 

Jürgen Bosch
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology
Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute
615 North Wolfe Street, W8708
Baltimore, MD 21205
Phone: +1-410-614-4742
Lab:      +1-410-614-4894
Fax:      +1-410-955-3655

Reply via email to