|From:||Ian Montgomery <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
Like you I was a bit startled by "MOPS-buffered Ringer." I think
the offending lab must be using Ringer as a generic term for all
physiological saline solutions. Unless of course they are using a mixture of
Ringer and MOPS. Now, I'd like to know the osmotic strength of that
solution. Then, being a broken down physiologist, have a look at the effect
of this solution when compared with a "real" physiological saline solution.
Afterwards, what effects has this solution had on the ultrastructure.
On Fri, 15 Jun 2001, Kinsley, David wrote:
> I have a published protocol that uses MOPS-buffered Ringer's
> solution. I have MOPS but I have never heard of Ringer's ...
Ringer's (1893) was one of the first physiological saline
solutions, used for keeping frogs' organs such as heart and
other muscles working for a few hours in isolation. Locke
improved the brew in 1895. Mammal-friendly solutions (Tyrode,
Hanks, Dulbecco etc) soon followed. All these useful liquids
pre-date by about 50-60 years the introduction of physiologically
inert (we hope) zwitterionic buffers such as HEPES and MOPS.
Your "published protocol" should contain references that
justify the designation "MOPS-buffered Ringer." If it doesn't
you should assume that this is ignorant mumbo-jumbo and use some
universally recognized pbysiological saline solution.
John A. Kiernan
Department of Anatomy & Cell Biology
The University of Western Ontario
London, Canada N6A 5C1
Dr. Ian Montgomery,
45 Springfield Park,
Tel: 01505 335885
<< Previous Message | Next Message >>