Re: [ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-19 Thread Patrick Shaw Stewart
Hi Christine

As Nagarajan mentioned, we do have a UV Pen that we offer at a reasonably
modest price.

However we have not been promoting it because we've been struggling to find
a camera that we can recommend to use with it.

We use it with an old Russian microscope (normal glass optics) and a cheap
consumer Panasonic camera on a starlight setting, which works very well.
 We developed it for our own crystallization project and we have found it
very useful, although we occasionally get both false positives and false
negatives.

One problem is that the cheap camera we use is now obsolete, and we are
investigating our own solution, which will involve writing our own software
for an off-the-shelf CCD and lens.  (CCD seems better than CMOS.)  If anyone
knows of a suitable more expensive SLR-type consumer camera, please let me
know.  We can't find one.

We are looking at just the tail end of the fluorescence, the part that is in
the visible or near-UV spectrum, so you need a sensitive camera.  We have
found that you need to push everything, taking e.g. 30 exposures and
combining them, subtracting the dark image etc.  Presumably the Panasonic
point-and-click camera does this.

One solution is to buy a camera from one of the microscope suppliers, but
they use very old technology, and charge you a fortune for e.g. the
controller (which is essentially a laptop that was designed 15 years ago).
 The results are no better than the Panasonic camera, and we hesitate to
sell you a UV source for around 1000 pounds then recommend a camera system
for 6,000.  However the pens are available to anyone who wants to order one!

We're not claiming that our approach is as good as the more expensive
commercial systems, some of which have quartz optics.  Each image takes 30s,
you have to work in a dark room, and you can't use it in transmission mode
(allowing you to see absorbance) for which you need quartz optics.

Another way to go is to use the approach that we published recently, where
you covalently (therefore unambiguously) label your crystals *after *they
have grown.  It's pretty much 100% accurate.  See the methods section of the
ref below.

Hope this helps

Best wishes

Patrick


Patrick D. Shaw Stewart, Stefan A. Kolek, Richard A. Briggs, Naomi E. Chayen
and Peter F.M. Baldock. “Random Microseeding: A Theoretical and Practical
Exploration of Seed Stability and Seeding Techniques for Successful Protein
Crystallization”

*Crystal Growth and Design*, 2011, 11 (8), p3432.



On-line at http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/cg2001442





On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 6:13 PM, Shiva Bhowmik gene1...@gmail.com wrote:

 Would be curious to know the current limitations on UV microscopy employed
 for screening protein crystals - such as content of aromatic amino acids,
 protein size etc.

 Cheers,

 Shiva


 On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Klaus Fütterer k.futte...@bham.ac.ukwrote:

 From the experience when our (commercial) UV imaging system was set up, I
 can confirm that signal-to-noise is a non-trivial parameter for imaging in
 the UV range.

 I find the additional info gained from the UV capability very useful, not
 just to distinguish salt from protein crystals, but also to tell protein
 from buffer precipitate, buffer phase separation from protein phase
 separation, etc.

 Klaus


 ===

Klaus Fütterer, Ph.D.
Reader in Structural Biology
  Undergraduate Admissions

 School of Biosciences P: +44-(0)-121-414 5895
 University of Birmingham  F: +44-(0)-121-414 5925
 Edgbaston E: k.futte...@bham.ac.uk
 Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK   W: http://tinyurl.com/futterer-lab
 ===





 On 16 Sep 2011, at 04:57, Nagarajan V wrote:

  Typically, what you image is Trp fluorescence by exciting at around 280
 nm and observing at around 350 nm. Standard silicon based detectors do fine
 at the detection wavelength, although, as you can imagine, increased
 sensitivity in the UV means increase in the price of the detector. If your
 excitation and emission light paths do not overlap, you also can get by with
 standard glass (crown, flint, etc.) optics since they do allow some of the
 350-nm light to get through. Therefore, yes, it is possible to build an
 inexpensive UV imager based on inexpensive excitation light source (Douglas
 Instruments offers a pen light), and standard lab microscope. Of course, for
 increased sensitivity and contrast you need a very good light source, optics
 made of quartz and calcium fluoride that let almost all the UV light
 through, highly discriminating filters and a sensitive detector.
 
  V. Nagarajan
  JANSi
  http://janscientific.com
 
  On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Edward A. Berry ber...@upstate.edu
 wrote:
  A real UV microscope requires quartz optics, right?
  Probably conventional 

Re: [ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-16 Thread Shiva Bhowmik
Would be curious to know the current limitations on UV microscopy employed
for screening protein crystals - such as content of aromatic amino acids,
protein size etc.

Cheers,

Shiva

On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:19 AM, Klaus Fütterer k.futte...@bham.ac.ukwrote:

 From the experience when our (commercial) UV imaging system was set up, I
 can confirm that signal-to-noise is a non-trivial parameter for imaging in
 the UV range.

 I find the additional info gained from the UV capability very useful, not
 just to distinguish salt from protein crystals, but also to tell protein
 from buffer precipitate, buffer phase separation from protein phase
 separation, etc.

 Klaus


 ===

Klaus Fütterer, Ph.D.
Reader in Structural Biology
  Undergraduate Admissions

 School of Biosciences P: +44-(0)-121-414 5895
 University of Birmingham  F: +44-(0)-121-414 5925
 Edgbaston E: k.futte...@bham.ac.uk
 Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK   W: http://tinyurl.com/futterer-lab
 ===





 On 16 Sep 2011, at 04:57, Nagarajan V wrote:

  Typically, what you image is Trp fluorescence by exciting at around 280
 nm and observing at around 350 nm. Standard silicon based detectors do fine
 at the detection wavelength, although, as you can imagine, increased
 sensitivity in the UV means increase in the price of the detector. If your
 excitation and emission light paths do not overlap, you also can get by with
 standard glass (crown, flint, etc.) optics since they do allow some of the
 350-nm light to get through. Therefore, yes, it is possible to build an
 inexpensive UV imager based on inexpensive excitation light source (Douglas
 Instruments offers a pen light), and standard lab microscope. Of course, for
 increased sensitivity and contrast you need a very good light source, optics
 made of quartz and calcium fluoride that let almost all the UV light
 through, highly discriminating filters and a sensitive detector.
 
  V. Nagarajan
  JANSi
  http://janscientific.com
 
  On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Edward A. Berry ber...@upstate.edu
 wrote:
  A real UV microscope requires quartz optics, right?
  Probably conventional microscopes use glass.
  And you can't see 280 nm (and its not good for your eyes)
  so you need some kind of phosphor screen to view the image?
 
 
  Bosch, Juergen wrote:
  I'm replying here to myself :-)
 
  So in an off-board discussion it turns out that the microscope in
 question was a special
  emitted light and not a UV microscope. So real UV microscopes might be
 better for the
  purpose of detecting real crystals.
 
  Sorry for the confusion - had too much sun today :-)
 
  Jürgen
 
  On Sep 15, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Jürgen Bosch wrote:
 
  I once tested such a commercial system in Seattle about 4 years ago. It
 did not impress
  me. In particular the discrimination between salt and protein did not
 work for about 10
  different proteins from which we already had collected data. sure those
 were small
  between 10 and 100 micrometer. Excuse was to few tryptophans
  So in theory it is nice but a cheaper variant might be to add Gfp to your
 protein and
  screen for something green.
  Jürgen
 
  ..
  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
  http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/
 
  On Sep 15, 2011, at 16:03, Frank von Delft frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk
 wrote:
 
  A while ago I was trying to be cheap, so we played around with it quite
  a bit in the lab. After rediscovering some of the basics of
  signal-to-noise and microscope transmission efficiency and that sort of
  rot, I realised that the commercial systems may not be all that
  ridiculously overpriced after all. Not if one wants to be able to say
  something useful about really really small crystals -- the only ones
  that really matter in the grand scheme of things (big ones are quick to
  test; little ones must first be optimized = money+time).
 
  But maybe I was just being incompetent. Happens.
  phx.
 
 
 
 
  On 15/09/2011 20:50, Andrew Purkiss-Trew wrote:
  Quoting Harman, Christinechristine.har...@fda.hhs.gov:
 
  Hi All,
  I was curious if any of you have tried or even know if it is
  possible to adapt a stereoscope (in my case an Olympus SZX10 model)
  so as to view protein crystals with UV illumination. Basically, I
  want a cheap manual version of what a Rock UV Imager does. I know
  this is probably a crazy dream. However, I would greatly appreciate
  any comments, advice or experience any of you may have.
 
  Molecular Dimension do such an adaptor which fits to existing
 

[ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-15 Thread Harman, Christine
Hi All,
I was curious if any of you have tried or even know if it is possible to adapt 
a stereoscope (in my case an Olympus SZX10 model) so as to view protein 
crystals with UV illumination. Basically, I want a cheap manual version of what 
a Rock UV Imager does.  I know this is probably a crazy dream.  However, I 
would greatly appreciate any comments, advice or experience any of you may have.

Thanks so much,
Christine



Re: [ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-15 Thread Robert Sweet
I'm not going to respond to the larger group, but I know one can buy LEDs 
that emit strongly at 280 nm, which would give tryptophan fluorescence. 
They're about $200, and one could build or buy a control circuit for not 
much more.  I think this is about what the commercial tools do.  You'd 
want front illumination.  You can get the LED with a convex lens on the 
front, giving a focus about 1 away. At that point the light is dangerous 
-- don't shine it into your eye from that distance.  You'd want to ask 
your local safety guys to check it out.


We would use it at the synchrotron with a flash circuit that would be 
synchronized with a video camera -- I think roughly 20ms would do it.


Let me know if it works.

Bob

=
 Robert M. Sweet E-Dress: sw...@bnl.gov
 Group Leader, PXRR: Macromolecular   ^ (that's L
   Crystallography Research Resource at NSLSnot 1)
   http://px.nsls.bnl.gov/
 Biology Dept
 Brookhaven Nat'l Lab.   Phones:
 Upton, NY  11973631 344 3401  (Office)
 U.S.A.  631 344 2741  (Facsimile)
=

On Thu, 15 Sep 2011, Harman, Christine wrote:


Hi All,
I was curious if any of you have tried or even know if it is possible to adapt 
a stereoscope (in my case an Olympus SZX10 model) so as to view protein 
crystals with UV illumination. Basically, I want a cheap manual version of what 
a Rock UV Imager does.  I know this is probably a crazy dream.  However, I 
would greatly appreciate any comments, advice or experience any of you may have.

Thanks so much,
Christine




Re: [ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-15 Thread Andrew Purkiss-Trew

Quoting Harman, Christine christine.har...@fda.hhs.gov:


Hi All,
I was curious if any of you have tried or even know if it is  
possible to adapt a stereoscope (in my case an Olympus SZX10 model)  
so as to view protein crystals with UV illumination. Basically, I  
want a cheap manual version of what a Rock UV Imager does.  I know  
this is probably a crazy dream.  However, I would greatly appreciate  
any comments, advice or experience any of you may have.




Molecular Dimension do such an adaptor which fits to existing microscopes.

See  
http://www.moleculardimensions.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=121cat=X%2DtaLight%3Csup%3E%99%3C%2Fsup%3E+100+%2D+UV+for+Microscope+




This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


Re: [ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-15 Thread Ed Pozharski
On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 20:50 +0100, Andrew Purkiss-Trew wrote:
 Molecular Dimension do such an adaptor which fits to existing
 microscopes.

Do you by any chance know the price?  I can seemingly order it through
the website for the hefty price of $0.00, which is too good to be true.

-- 
Hurry up before we all come back to our senses!
   Julian, King of Lemurs


Re: [ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-15 Thread Frank von Delft
A while ago I was trying to be cheap, so we played around with it quite 
a bit in the lab.  After rediscovering some of the basics of 
signal-to-noise and microscope transmission efficiency and that sort of 
rot, I realised that the commercial systems may not be all that 
ridiculously overpriced after all.  Not if one wants to be able to say 
something useful about really really small crystals -- the only ones 
that really matter in the grand scheme of things (big ones are quick to 
test; little ones must first be optimized = money+time).


But maybe I was just being incompetent.  Happens.
phx.




On 15/09/2011 20:50, Andrew Purkiss-Trew wrote:

Quoting Harman, Christinechristine.har...@fda.hhs.gov:


Hi All,
I was curious if any of you have tried or even know if it is
possible to adapt a stereoscope (in my case an Olympus SZX10 model)
so as to view protein crystals with UV illumination. Basically, I
want a cheap manual version of what a Rock UV Imager does.  I know
this is probably a crazy dream.  However, I would greatly appreciate
any comments, advice or experience any of you may have.


Molecular Dimension do such an adaptor which fits to existing microscopes.

See
http://www.moleculardimensions.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=121cat=X%2DtaLight%3Csup%3E%99%3C%2Fsup%3E+100+%2D+UV+for+Microscope+



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


Re: [ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-15 Thread Jürgen Bosch
I once tested such a commercial system in Seattle about 4 years ago. It did not 
impress me. In particular the discrimination between salt and protein did not 
work for about 10 different proteins from which we already had collected data. 
sure those were small between 10 and 100 micrometer. Excuse was to few 
tryptophans
So in theory it is nice but a cheaper variant might be to add Gfp to your 
protein and screen for something green.
Jürgen 

..
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
http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/

On Sep 15, 2011, at 16:03, Frank von Delft frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk wrote:

 A while ago I was trying to be cheap, so we played around with it quite 
 a bit in the lab.  After rediscovering some of the basics of 
 signal-to-noise and microscope transmission efficiency and that sort of 
 rot, I realised that the commercial systems may not be all that 
 ridiculously overpriced after all.  Not if one wants to be able to say 
 something useful about really really small crystals -- the only ones 
 that really matter in the grand scheme of things (big ones are quick to 
 test; little ones must first be optimized = money+time).
 
 But maybe I was just being incompetent.  Happens.
 phx.
 
 
 
 
 On 15/09/2011 20:50, Andrew Purkiss-Trew wrote:
 Quoting Harman, Christinechristine.har...@fda.hhs.gov:
 
 Hi All,
 I was curious if any of you have tried or even know if it is
 possible to adapt a stereoscope (in my case an Olympus SZX10 model)
 so as to view protein crystals with UV illumination. Basically, I
 want a cheap manual version of what a Rock UV Imager does.  I know
 this is probably a crazy dream.  However, I would greatly appreciate
 any comments, advice or experience any of you may have.
 
 Molecular Dimension do such an adaptor which fits to existing microscopes.
 
 See
 http://www.moleculardimensions.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=121cat=X%2DtaLight%3Csup%3E%99%3C%2Fsup%3E+100+%2D+UV+for+Microscope+
 
 
 
 This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


Re: [ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-15 Thread Andrew Purkiss-Trew

Quoting Ed Pozharski epozh...@umaryland.edu:


On Thu, 2011-09-15 at 20:50 +0100, Andrew Purkiss-Trew wrote:

Molecular Dimension do such an adaptor which fits to existing
microscopes.


Do you by any chance know the price?  I can seemingly order it through
the website for the hefty price of $0.00, which is too good to be true.



Sorry, I don't know, I think that a new PI at our institute has  
ordered one from his new equipment budget. But I don't have a price to  
hand, I can ask though.


--
Andrew Purkiss-Trew
X-ray Laboratory Manager
London Research Institute
Cancer Research UK




This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


Re: [ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-15 Thread Bosch, Juergen
I'm replying here to myself :-)

So in an off-board discussion it turns out that the microscope in question 
was a special emitted light and not a UV microscope. So real UV microscopes 
might be better for the purpose of detecting real crystals.

Sorry for the confusion - had too much sun today :-)

Jürgen

On Sep 15, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Jürgen Bosch wrote:

I once tested such a commercial system in Seattle about 4 years ago. It did not 
impress me. In particular the discrimination between salt and protein did not 
work for about 10 different proteins from which we already had collected data. 
sure those were small between 10 and 100 micrometer. Excuse was to few 
tryptophans
So in theory it is nice but a cheaper variant might be to add Gfp to your 
protein and screen for something green.
Jürgen

..
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
http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/

On Sep 15, 2011, at 16:03, Frank von Delft frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk wrote:

A while ago I was trying to be cheap, so we played around with it quite
a bit in the lab.  After rediscovering some of the basics of
signal-to-noise and microscope transmission efficiency and that sort of
rot, I realised that the commercial systems may not be all that
ridiculously overpriced after all.  Not if one wants to be able to say
something useful about really really small crystals -- the only ones
that really matter in the grand scheme of things (big ones are quick to
test; little ones must first be optimized = money+time).

But maybe I was just being incompetent.  Happens.
phx.




On 15/09/2011 20:50, Andrew Purkiss-Trew wrote:
Quoting Harman, Christinechristine.har...@fda.hhs.gov:

Hi All,
I was curious if any of you have tried or even know if it is
possible to adapt a stereoscope (in my case an Olympus SZX10 model)
so as to view protein crystals with UV illumination. Basically, I
want a cheap manual version of what a Rock UV Imager does.  I know
this is probably a crazy dream.  However, I would greatly appreciate
any comments, advice or experience any of you may have.

Molecular Dimension do such an adaptor which fits to existing microscopes.

See
http://www.moleculardimensions.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=121cat=X%2DtaLight%3Csup%3E%99%3C%2Fsup%3E+100+%2D+UV+for+Microscope+



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

..
Jürgen Bosch
Johns Hopkins University
Bloomberg School of Public Health
Department of Biochemistry  Molecular Biology
Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute
615 North Wolfe Street, W8708
Baltimore, MD 21205
Office: +1-410-614-4742
Lab:  +1-410-614-4894
Fax:  +1-410-955-2926
http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/







Re: [ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-15 Thread Edward A. Berry

A real UV microscope requires quartz optics, right?
Probably conventional microscopes use glass.
And you can't see 280 nm (and its not good for your eyes)
so you need some kind of phosphor screen to view the image?

Bosch, Juergen wrote:

I'm replying here to myself :-)

So in an off-board discussion it turns out that the microscope in question 
was a special
emitted light and not a UV microscope. So real UV microscopes might be better 
for the
purpose of detecting real crystals.

Sorry for the confusion - had too much sun today :-)

Jürgen

On Sep 15, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Jürgen Bosch wrote:


I once tested such a commercial system in Seattle about 4 years ago. It did not 
impress
me. In particular the discrimination between salt and protein did not work for 
about 10
different proteins from which we already had collected data. sure those were 
small
between 10 and 100 micrometer. Excuse was to few tryptophans
So in theory it is nice but a cheaper variant might be to add Gfp to your 
protein and
screen for something green.
Jürgen

..
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
http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/

On Sep 15, 2011, at 16:03, Frank von Delft frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk wrote:


A while ago I was trying to be cheap, so we played around with it quite
a bit in the lab. After rediscovering some of the basics of
signal-to-noise and microscope transmission efficiency and that sort of
rot, I realised that the commercial systems may not be all that
ridiculously overpriced after all. Not if one wants to be able to say
something useful about really really small crystals -- the only ones
that really matter in the grand scheme of things (big ones are quick to
test; little ones must first be optimized = money+time).

But maybe I was just being incompetent. Happens.
phx.




On 15/09/2011 20:50, Andrew Purkiss-Trew wrote:

Quoting Harman, Christinechristine.har...@fda.hhs.gov:


Hi All,
I was curious if any of you have tried or even know if it is
possible to adapt a stereoscope (in my case an Olympus SZX10 model)
so as to view protein crystals with UV illumination. Basically, I
want a cheap manual version of what a Rock UV Imager does. I know
this is probably a crazy dream. However, I would greatly appreciate
any comments, advice or experience any of you may have.


Molecular Dimension do such an adaptor which fits to existing microscopes.

See
http://www.moleculardimensions.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=121cat=X%2DtaLight%3Csup%3E%99%3C%2Fsup%3E+100+%2D+UV+for+Microscope+



This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


..
Jürgen Bosch
Johns Hopkins University
Bloomberg School of Public Health
Department of Biochemistry  Molecular Biology
Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute
615 North Wolfe Street, W8708
Baltimore, MD 21205
Office: +1-410-614-4742
Lab: +1-410-614-4894
Fax: +1-410-955-2926
http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/







Re: [ccp4bb] UV imaging of crystals

2011-09-15 Thread Nagarajan V
Typically, what you image is Trp fluorescence by exciting at around 280 nm
and observing at around 350 nm. Standard silicon based detectors do fine at
the detection wavelength, although, as you can imagine, increased
sensitivity in the UV means increase in the price of the detector. If your
excitation and emission light paths do not overlap, you also can get by with
standard glass (crown, flint, etc.) optics since they do allow some of the
350-nm light to get through. Therefore, yes, it is possible to build an
inexpensive UV imager based on inexpensive excitation light source (Douglas
Instruments offers a pen light), and standard lab microscope. Of course, for
increased sensitivity and contrast you need a very good light source, optics
made of quartz and calcium fluoride that let almost all the UV light
through, highly discriminating filters and a sensitive detector.

V. Nagarajan
JANSi
http://janscientific.com

On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 7:07 PM, Edward A. Berry ber...@upstate.edu wrote:

 A real UV microscope requires quartz optics, right?
 Probably conventional microscopes use glass.
 And you can't see 280 nm (and its not good for your eyes)
 so you need some kind of phosphor screen to view the image?


 Bosch, Juergen wrote:

 I'm replying here to myself :-)

 So in an off-board discussion it turns out that the microscope in
 question was a special
 emitted light and not a UV microscope. So real UV microscopes might be
 better for the
 purpose of detecting real crystals.

 Sorry for the confusion - had too much sun today :-)

 Jürgen

 On Sep 15, 2011, at 4:19 PM, Jürgen Bosch wrote:

  I once tested such a commercial system in Seattle about 4 years ago. It
 did not impress
 me. In particular the discrimination between salt and protein did not
 work for about 10
 different proteins from which we already had collected data. sure those
 were small
 between 10 and 100 micrometer. Excuse was to few tryptophans
 So in theory it is nice but a cheaper variant might be to add Gfp to your
 protein and
 screen for something green.
 Jürgen

 ..
 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
 http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/

 On Sep 15, 2011, at 16:03, Frank von Delft frank.vonde...@sgc.ox.ac.uk
 wrote:

  A while ago I was trying to be cheap, so we played around with it quite
 a bit in the lab. After rediscovering some of the basics of
 signal-to-noise and microscope transmission efficiency and that sort of
 rot, I realised that the commercial systems may not be all that
 ridiculously overpriced after all. Not if one wants to be able to say
 something useful about really really small crystals -- the only ones
 that really matter in the grand scheme of things (big ones are quick to
 test; little ones must first be optimized = money+time).

 But maybe I was just being incompetent. Happens.
 phx.




 On 15/09/2011 20:50, Andrew Purkiss-Trew wrote:

 Quoting Harman, 
 ChristineChristine.Harman@**FDA.HHS.GOVchristine.har...@fda.hhs.gov
 :

  Hi All,
 I was curious if any of you have tried or even know if it is
 possible to adapt a stereoscope (in my case an Olympus SZX10 model)
 so as to view protein crystals with UV illumination. Basically, I
 want a cheap manual version of what a Rock UV Imager does. I know
 this is probably a crazy dream. However, I would greatly appreciate
 any comments, advice or experience any of you may have.

  Molecular Dimension do such an adaptor which fits to existing
 microscopes.

 See
 http://www.**moleculardimensions.com/**shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=**
 121cat=X%2DtaLight%3Csup%3E%**99%3C%2Fsup%3E+100+%2D+UV+for+**
 Microscope+http://www.moleculardimensions.com/shopdisplayproducts.asp?id=121cat=X%2DtaLight%3Csup%3E%99%3C%2Fsup%3E+100+%2D+UV+for+Microscope+
 


 --**--**
 This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.


 ..
 Jürgen Bosch
 Johns Hopkins University
 Bloomberg School of Public Health
 Department of Biochemistry  Molecular Biology
 Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute
 615 North Wolfe Street, W8708
 Baltimore, MD 21205
 Office: +1-410-614-4742
 Lab: +1-410-614-4894
 Fax: +1-410-955-2926
 http://web.mac.com/bosch_lab/