I do have to wonder if that is the most effective use of resources. And - yes - I'd have the same question if this was a TIMSTOF Ultra or other super high end instruments, but only because the pull-downs I've seen seem to take students 2 days to do a pair.
Presumably...you know....the instrument isn't just sitting there after it does it's 14 minutes of work....
It is super cool that the bottlenecks would fall back on sample prep and maybe through robotics and stuff you could find antibodies to do pull-downs on all the things.
But you do have to wonder if maybe it is a tiny bit of overkill? Like...could you do this on an Exploris 240 for 1/4 the price and just run a 30 minute gradient instead of a 7min? It's tough to imagine a scenario where this is a superb use of resources.
However - if you're in a busy core facility and you've got 40 people who do IPs and you the 3rd Thursday of every month is IP day (yay!) knocking out 40 pairs of IPs in triplicate in
40 x 2 x 3 x 7 / 60 in 28 hours would be pretty great, particularly if you're paid by sample injection for 240 in about a day's time.
The Harvard thing where they've done just an absurd number of pull-downs is one of my favorite resources ever (and completely under-utilized by the scientific community) - PlexBio or something? And the thought that you could do that label free between now and ABRF (if you had the samples) is super compelling.
No comments:
Post a Comment