Dear Joes: I have used both ITC200 and VP-ITC. In my opinion, the VP-ITC is better than the former one. Although ITC200 needs less samples, the sensitivity is lower than VP-ITC. Furthermore, the syringe of ITC200 is too easy to be broken and the price of it is very high~~ You need a experienced person to change it.
Best wishes, Xuelu On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:21 AM, krish <[email protected]> wrote: > I second Stephen's comments on NanoITC. I haven't seen any improvement in > terms of volume. The total volume one should use is very much comparable to > MicroCal VP-ITC. Analysis software is OK--not so good--crashing some > times--GUI needs to bit robust in handling the data. > > HTH ! > > Krishna Chinthalapudi > Hannover Medical School > > > On Tue, Jan 17, 2012 at 6:55 PM, Stephen Graham <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We bought a NanoITC from TA instruments last year and I can't >> recommend it enough. We are able to get excellent binding curves with >> the low volume cell/syringe (200uL/50uL, respectively, which actually >> means 350uL/120uL in order to load both without bubbles) using the >> same concentrations of protein as we used to use in a MicroCal VP-ITC. >> The control/analysis software is much easier to use (although the >> graphing capabilities could be improved) and the technical support has >> thus far has been excellent. Also, as others have said it's a steal >> compared with the equivalent GE machine (both in terms of purchase >> cost and cost of maintenance contracts). >> >> Stephen >> >> On 17 January 2012 16:02, Jose Artur Brito <[email protected]> wrote: >> > Dear All, >> > sorry for this off-topic questions but I would like to have some >> feed-back >> > from you on Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC) equipments. >> > We have a very nice quotation for an iTC200 from GE Healthcare. We >> wanted >> > this one because it uses ~200uL sample per measurement (really nice when >> > your dealing with "precious" samples, ie., proteins with low expression >> > yields). However, I was told that, although consuming much less sample, >> is >> > not as good (sensitivity, mixing issues, bubbles, ...), as the VP-ITC >> (it >> > uses ~1.4mL per measurement, seven times more than the iTC200). >> > Does anyone has experience with these two equipments? Would you prefer >> one >> > over the other (please state your reasons)? Would you suggest another >> > equipment/brand for the ITC (like the NanoITC from TA Instruments)? >> > Thanks in advance, >> > Jose Artur Brito >> > >> > -- >> > ************************************************ >> > * José Artur Brito, PhD * >> > * * >> > * Post-Doctoral Fellow * >> > * Membrane Protein Crystallography Lab * >> > * Instituto de Tecnologia Química e Biológica * >> > * Oeiras - Portugal * >> > * * >> > * Tel.: +351.21.446.97.61 * >> > * Fax: +351.21.443.36.44 * >> > * * >> > * E-mail: [email protected] * >> > * URL: http://mx.itqb.unl.pt * >> > ************************************************ >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr Stephen Graham >> 1851 Research Fellow >> Cambridge Institute for Medical Research >> Wellcome Trust/MRC Building >> Addenbrooke's Hospital, Hills Road >> Cambridge, CB2 0XY, UK >> Phone: +44 1223 762 638 >> > >
