Hi Frank,
In our hands, some RNAs only crystallize out of cacodylate buffers. We would
otherwise stop using it out of health and safety concerns.
Blaine
Blaine Mooers
Assistant Professor
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center
S.L. Young Biomedical Research Center Rm. 466
Letter address: Shipping address:
P.O. Box 26901, BRC 466 975 NE 10th Street, BRC 466
Oklahoma City, OK 73190 Oklahoma City, OK 73104-5419
office: (405) 271-8300 lab: (405) 271-8313 fax: (405) 271-3910
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
webpage: http://www.oumedicine.com/department-of-biochemistry-and-molecular-biology/faculty/blaine-mooers-ph-d-
________________________________________
From: CCP4 bulletin board [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Frank von Delft [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 6:26 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [ccp4bb] usefulness of cacodylate?
Hi all -
Anybody know
a) how hazardous is cacodylate?
b) does it really matter for crystallization screens?
It seems by far the most hazardous component of the standard screens;
this 2011 paper seems to think so (bizarrely, I can't access it from
Oxford):
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2818.1977.tb01136.x/abstract
and this is site says lethal dose is 0.5-5g/kg:
http://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/4468
meaning 2ml of a 0.1M solution contains 1/10th lethal dose...? (Someone
should check my maths...) [Coarse screens come mixed 2ml per condition.]
Has anybody done careful experiments that showed it really mattered for
a given crystal -- or even an entire screen?
So I'm inclined to toss it out entirely rather than make crystallization
screening a "hazardous activity". (We're being subjected to a safety
review.)
Thoughts welcome.
phx
|