Re: Fluorescence Extinction Coefficient vs Photostability - Alexa 633 vs 647 **vendor reply**

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Kilgore, Jason A. Kilgore, Jason A.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Fluorescence Extinction Coefficient vs Photostability - Alexa 633 vs 647 **vendor reply**

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****


** Vendor reply **

I can confirm the prior statement to Claire (being that I'm in Molecular Probes Tech Support).

Alexa Fluor 633 is more hydrophobic, which makes is less soluble in aqueous solutions, as well as more "sticky" for conjugation, leading to more difficulties with purifying conjugates.

Also, in my experience (having helped develop antifades here in R&D), AF633 is less photostable than AF647 in most environments, though I can't seem to dig up specific data from back then.  This is the main reason I tend to recommend AF647 over AF633.  Also, AF633 is a bit lower in wavelength, and therefore a bit more problematic with bleedthrough into lower wavelengths (such as combinations with Cy3 or AF555).

We perform a QY determination on some of the conjugates of these.  If you compare the most recent lots of AF633 goat anti-mouse (A21050) and AF647 goat anti-mouse (A21235), both of which are determined relative to DDAO, AF633 has a value of 0.5 and AF647 has a value of 0.7.

Jason


Jason A. Kilgore
Technical Application Scientist
Molecular Probes / EVOS Tech Support
Thermo Fisher Scientific
 
1-800-955-6288 then option 4, then option 3, then option 2.
Or dial direct at +1 541 335 0353
[hidden email]
 
This communication is intended solely for the individual/entity to whom it is addressed. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information.  Any unauthorized disclosure or copying is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete it from your system.
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Confocal Microscopy List [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Claire Brown
Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 8:35 AM
To: [hidden email]
Subject: Re: Fluorescence Extinction Coefficient vs Photostability - Alexa 633 vs 647

*****
To join, leave or search the confocal microscopy listserv, go to:
http://lists.umn.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A0=confocalmicroscopy
Post images on http://www.imgur.com and include the link in your posting.
*****

Sometime ago a Molecular Probes rep told me the AF633 was not very soluble so they had a very hard time measuring the QY.
That is why they don't quote it on their webpage or in their literature.
She suspected it was much lower than AF647. We always recommend AF647.

I had remembered AF647 was more photostable but I see ThermoFisher doesn't have it on the dashboard. Not sure why.
https://www.thermofisher.com/ca/en/home/life-science/cell-analysis/fluorophores/alexa-fluor-647.html

Sincerely,

Claire
Loading...