Su-Hua,

Dig-labeled probes are certainly easier to work with and provide results
sooner. Radioactive-labels are generally considered more sensitive, but with
amplification techniques the dig-labeled probes can approach that
sensitivity. Depending on how difficult it is to locate your target, one or
the other may be best. For "high-throughput" I would imagine dig-labeled
probes would be the one of choice. That's what we use in our lab.

Tim Morken, BA, EMT(MSA), HTL(ASCP)
Infectious Disease Pathology Activity
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Ms-G32
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA 30333
USA

PH: 404-639-3964
FAX: 404-639-3043

email: tim9@cdc.gov



-----Original Message-----
From: Su-Hua Lee [mailto:shlee@incyte.com]
Sent: Monday, January 22, 2001 1:24 PM
To: HistoNet Server
Subject: Questions..


Hi! Fellow Histonetters:

        I am new to this. I have a couple questions:

        1) Does anybody know that for high-throughput  (for industry) in
situ
hybridization, do DIG-labelled probes work better than radioactive-labelled
probes??

        2) For tumor samples, do DIG-labelled probes work better than
radioactive-labelleds'?

Thanks for helping.

Su-Hua Lee
Research Associate II
Incyte Genomics, Inc.
E-mail: shlee@incyte.com