RE: MOPS-Ringer ?
|From:||"Hawkins, Hal K." <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
As a student I mixed up MOPS-buffered tissue culture medium. Since its pKa
is below 7.4, it efficiently resists the acidification that most tissue
undergo in room air as the CO2 is lost. We did try EM fixatives which
MOPS or complete medium, and got good results.
Hal Hawkins, UTMB Galveston
From: Ian Montgomery [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 16, 2001 3:17 PM
Subject: MOPS-Ringer ?
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 >>