Whatever you decide to do, it is good practice to confirm your “hit” with an orthogonal method. Interactions in both directions with the same piece of equipment is a start but that in my eyes does not count as another method.
If you are trying to decide between the Blitz and an Octet I would definitely go for the Octet but there may be some money constrains related to this question. You should also be clear about the differences between EPR and SPR and their limitations. Good luck and have fun with it. Jürgen ...................... Jürgen Bosch Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Johns Hopkins Malaria Research Institute 615 North Wolfe Street, W8708 Baltimore, MD 21205 Office: +1-410-614-4742<tel:%2B1-410-614-4742> Lab: +1-410-614-4894<tel:%2B1-410-614-4894> Fax: +1-410-955-2926<tel:%2B1-410-955-2926> http://lupo.jhsph.edu On Oct 10, 2014, at 10:56 AM, Alfredo Torres <tor...@correo.ifc.unam.mx<mailto:tor...@correo.ifc.unam.mx>> wrote: Dear all, Sorry for the non-CCP4 question. We are evaluating the current techniques to measure target-ligand interactions, and we would very much like to know the experience that the members of this community have about the BLItz/Octet system from ForteBio, in particular the rate of false positives/negatives and the feasibility of biosensor regeneration. Many thanks in advance for your feedback, Alfredo. Alfredo Torres-Larios, PhD Instituto de Fisiologia Celular, UNAM Mexico, DF, Mexico
