We are testing both of them to decide which one to buy.
The counting of living cells by trypan blue is very similar with both instruments, and it's highly reproducible with a good manual counting by chambers. The life tech one requires manual focus, which is bad for some points but good for other ones. I think it's just a matter to get used to it.
The real difference comes up with dead cell count. There is a big discrepancy between the two instruments. The biorad one tends to give a low percentage of dead cells (1-3%) under standard culture conditions. In contrast, the life tech one gives at least 12-15% of dead cells under standard conditions, same sample analyzed in bio rad TC20.
Now this is my point: which one do you think it gives you a more precise accuracy in cell viability?
I would like to receive comments by people that frequently performs these kind of assays.
Before answer, please keep in mind I know that:
Of course, both instruments are very similar.
Of course, trypan blue assay is not sufficient to evaluate dead cells, it's just an indication of cell death.
Of course, % of dead cells is cell type dependent.
Of course, the biorad one has an autofocus, therefore is able to evaluate dead cells based on several focuses.
Hi Francesco, I have evaluated those and many others in the past company. We found that the best system was the nexcelom auto 200, or vision. They have far better optics and software to differentiate dead cells and cell derby with multiple staining options. It was also better at identifying primary cells as the software allows for more irregular shapes, this was a big plus for us. But if you would only work with cell lines, the higher cost might not be worth it.
If you chose for the vision you can also add CBA software at some point, which would help with other assays too. We also tested the V-cell, ACT5, and the luna next to the countess and TC20
- Badges
- Science method