Technology is definitely a really big part of my methods. For example, we use a laser machine to analyse cells called a ‘FLOW CYTOMETER’. This allows us to measure up to 15 or so different things about the cell at the same time. It’s a very fancy expensive machine, but before we can run cells in it we have to use traditional (or old fashioned?) techniques to get them ready for it. So, I would say definitely a combination!
Here’s a picture of a flow cytometer we use at Manchester: https://sites.google.com/site/coreflowlabuom/home
Both really. Like Ben, I use a flow cytometer, but the one I have is not as advanced (it’s still a complex machine). I also use a PET scanner, which can give me 3D images of radioactive molecules in animals, it’s very high-tech.
On the other hand I use a very simple chemical technique called “thin-layer chomatography”. Basically you put a drop of your chemical on a strip of paper and dip it in different liquid. The distance the chemical migrates can tell me a lot about it’s properties. I use the pencil, paper and a simple calculator a lot.
Its a bit of both. For example I can measure the cell density of my culture using a spectrophotometer, which uses a a particular wavelength of light to measure how dense a sample is. This is a technique that has been around a long time, there is always newer and more accurate spectrophotometers but the technique is still the same. Currently, I have to take a sample of my culture and measure it separately. Now I have a probe, directly into my culture which acts like a spectophotometer and can tell me how dense my culture is real time, so I know how fast my cell are growing. This is time saving and reduces the risk of contamination if I don’t have to take samples to know what my cells are doing
Definitely both. Some techniques we use are very simple and old, such a staining cells so that we can see them under a microscope. But technology is a big part and new techniques allow us to discover a lot more.
Comments