Date: Thu, 14 Aug 1997 19:36:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Kent <kkratz@neca.com> To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg3118$foo@default> Subject: more coco's and cyto's
>From: Guy Van Der Kinderen <Guy.VanDerKinderen@rug.ac.be>
Nevertheless, it is known that GA's may loose
>90% of activity after autoclaving. At the end, filtersterilization did not
>appear that elaborous to me, Kent.
Try making 50 or 60 Liters a week that way. BTW, $6.00 per hour is 10 cents
a minute. So from a costing standpoint, it is frequently cheaper to add
more hormone than to add a more labor intensive step.
>BTW Kent,
>
>>While there is probably some degradation of the hormones when autoclaved;
>>as a practical matter it is easier to add the hormones before autoclaving
>>and adjust the concentration to what works after sterilization.
Sorry, let me add the rest of the punctuation. Seems like I have this
dangling participle. Bad construction. Let me restate it another way.
As long as your media is autoclaved the same way each time, the degredation
is essentially constant. Therefore, for the amount going in, you have some
constant amount coming out. The amount coming out is the important one and
is the only one the plant reacts to. So the hormone in the media is
adjusted to acheive the correct growth of the plant as an iterative process
over several subcultures. Still looks like mud to me.
>since the alcoholic solution is sterile. The small and diluted amount of
>alcohol won't disturb culturing.
Alcohol is not always sterile. There are several yeasts and Bacillus that
will survive and grow in 95% ethanol, one of which has been a problem in
some labs. Make sure you use fresh to dissolve in and flame well if you are
using it on your instruments.
Kent
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:07 PST