Since it is likely that many different wavelength settings will be used, an instrument with continuously variable wavelength settings for absorbance and fluorescence measurements would probably be more suitable than one using filter blocks. An example would be the Clariostar Plus from BMG LabTech, which uses linear variable filters instead of monochromators. This technology allow it to be almost as sensitive as a filter-based instrument.

I highly recommend Tecan, SpectraMax is also decent from my experience.

It would be weird if I didn't recommend Berthold, wouldn't it? :)

All examples above are fine instruments, our Tristar 5 would be another good option. Each brand has different strengths and weaknesses, for example Berthold excels in luminescence, instruments from BMG with LVF are very good for fluorescence, and so on.

Generally speaking, I don't think there are any brands to avoid nowadays (at least among well-known brands), the problem can be choosing an instrument that's not suitable for your needs (some things can be upgraded sometimes, but not always). For an entire research service there are of course a lot of different needs to cover, so the more features, the better, but if budget is limited then you have to define your needs very well.

Hi Brian,

As a developer of lanthanide nanoparticle-based assays—particularly in time-resolved fluorescence (TR-FRET, multiplexing, FLISA, FLIA) —we’ve had the opportunity to test and validate our products across a range of plate readers.

I can confirm what Francesc Felipe said about the Tristar 5 from Berthold: it works well with our assays.

In addition, we’ve also validated our kits on the SpectraMax iD5 (Molecular Devices) and Clariostar from BMG Labtech, which have shown equally robust performance for our applications.