Why isn't everyone using Sybr Green I instead of Picogreen(Qubit) to quantify low amounts of DNA? It seems to be roughly 10x cheaper and without significant drawbacks.
I am hestitating to switch because it seems systematically under-utilised in the community. Please help me see the missing point (if there is any).
Article Microplate fluorescence assay for the quantification of doub...
Article A Quantitative Fluorescence-Based Microplate Assay for the D...
Possibly because sybr green will bind to RNA and single stranded dna better than pico green does and this may be a disadvantage when measuring dna in the possible presence of rna
Thanks!
I would like to look that up to be sure. Where did you find information about Sybr Green I binding more unselectively to RNA/ssDNA than Picogreen?
you might find more following the wiki article references from this article
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SYBR_Green_I and the information for pico green came from the fisher web page
https://www.thermofisher.com/order/catalog/product/P11496
best wishes
Paul
Thanks, however the Information sources both state that the respective dye binds to ssDNA, albeit with lower performance (Fig. 2).
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Molecular Biology
- Biomolecules
- Nucleic Acids
- DNA