Hello,
We are performing a cost-benefit analysis regarding using our conventional room temperature 5 mm inverse probe for fragment screening/STD NMR vs a 1 or 1.7 mm room temperature microprobe. We would have to weight the purchase price of the microprobe, spinners and tubes versus the savings in fragment library and (unlabeled) target protein for the expected number of screens we do in a year.
A knowledgeable colleague suggested that we will save more material using a 1.7 mm probe vs. 1.0 mm probe due to issues getting the sample into the tiny 1 mm tubes. I was wondering if any of my colleagues on AMMRL are using 1 or 1.7 mm microprobe for fragment screening? If so, I would appreciate any general comments regarding preference for 1 or 1.7 or 3 or 5 mm probes for this type of experiment. Did you discover any unanticipated problems with the workflow using smaller tubes? We have an autosampler, but no liquid handler and end up doing the manipulations by hand. Are the 1 mm tubes difficult to load? Does the drop in signal-to-noise ratio for the microprobe relative to the 5 mm probe require so much additional material that it eats up any savings of reducing the volume?
Thanks,
Justin
Received on Tue Mar 05 2019 - 07:26:55 MST