🚀 go-pugleaf

There is a big difference between a spam post of non-relevant material
compared to a reputable manufacturer giving good and correct advice while
using a tradename widely used in the literature.  I would be willing to bet
the vast majority of readers who recognize the term Texas Red would not
recognize sulforhodamine.  Give Molecular Probes a break.  They put out one
of the most informative catalogs in the business and their help line has
always been extremely useful to me.  When I had a problem with one of their
new dyes (a problem due to the biology of my system not their fault) they
sent me free samples of probes not yet commercially available to see if
they would be a better alternative.  I, of course, have no commercial or
financial interest in Molecular Probes.


>Hi,
>Just curious: I bet Molecular probes is happy to have people talk about
>"Texas Red" (their registered trademark), but wouldn't it be more correct
>and less commercial (so presumably more desirable to the same people
>who are outraged at Spam) to call the same conjugate sulforhodamine
>101?
>***Why is everyone calling it the former?***
>(Aldrich for instance sells 99% sulforhodamine 101 hydrate and an
>impure acid chloride; there might be other useful sources.)
>
>Richard Thrift
>
>>>> Jennifer Kramer <jak@EFN.ORG> 05/30/95 04:52pm >>>
>In sincere hopes of not sounding commercial...
>...Texas Red has much less of a tail in the fluorescein excitation range
>and is a much better choice for multicolor work for this reason...
>Sincerely,
>
>Jennifer Kramer
>Molecular Probes, Inc.

Thomas E. Phillips, Ph.D.
Associate Professor of Biological Sciences
Director, Molecular Cytology Core Facility
3 Tucker Hall
University of Missouri
Columbia, MO 65211
(314)-882-4712 (voice)
(314)-882-0123 (fax)