Laboratory protocol

Copeland, R. A. (1994), Methods for Protein Analysis A Practical Guide to Laboratory Protocols, Chapman and Hall, New York. 

Collins, A.G. and Crocker, M.E., Laboratory Protocol for Determining Fate of Waste Disposed in Deep Wells, EPA/600/8-88/008, National Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research, Bartlesville, OK, 1988. 

Armed with the common techniques of molecular biology and immu-nocytochemistry, an investigator is in a good position to apply in situ hybridization to EM for localization of nucleic acids at the ultrastructural level. McFadden (9) has a review on such use of in situ hybridization techniques. In the review, McFadden has included details of some of his laboratory protocols needed in in situ hybridization from fixation and labeling to probe labeling to the hybridization steps for localization of specific RNAs at the EM level. His protocol for hybridization is outlined below ... 

Clearly the time required to approach equilibrium can be substantially longer than provided in usual laboratory protocols, depending on the strength of sorption. 

SARS- and Other Coronavirnses Laboratory Protocols, edited by Dave Cavanagh, 2008... 

Gl. Gold, B., Radu, D., et al., Diagnosis of fragile X syndrome by Southern blot hybridization using a chemiluminescent probe A laboratory protocol. Mol. Diagn. 5(3), 169-178 (2000). 

Proteins, from many points of view, are much more complex than, for example, nucleic acids. As a result, it has been difficult to give laboratory protocols that can be applied to proteins in general however, in most cases the specialized protocols may be reduced to a few basic methods. But if a protein becomes pure or some of its unique properties are of special interest, another analytical method has to be used. Nevertheless, accurate quantitation of the amount of protein during the steps of protein preparation is the only valid way to evaluate the overall value of a procedure. 

The data development effort planned by the EPA has the potential to add significantly to the database on endocrine disruption. The use of standardized laboratory protocols and careful evaluation procedures will maximize the value of the results. In addition to providing data relevant to the regulation of the chemicals being tested, the data will also be useful for understanding the relationship between the relatively simple endpoints examined in some of the Tier I screens (such as receptor binding) and the development of more toxicologically relevant apical endpoints noted in the Tier II tests. 

Osmosis also has consequences for laboratory protocols. Mitochondria, chloroplasts, and lysosomes, for example, are bounded by semipermeable membranes. In isolating these organelles from broken cells, biochemists must perform the fractionations in isotonic solutions (see Fig. 1-8). Buffers used in cellular fractionations commonly contain sufficient concentrations (about 0.2 m) of sucrose or some other inert solute to protect the organelles from osmotic lysis. 

Waste should always be disposed of in accordance with all applicable regulations. Waste should be segregated according to institutional requirements, for example, into solid, aqueous, nonchlorinated organic, and chlorinated organic material. A collection (Lunn and San-sone, 1994) of techniques for the disposal of chemicals in laboratories has been published recently. Incorporation of these procedures into laboratory protocols can help to minimize waste disposal problems. 

Mabey, W.R., T. Mill, and D.G. Hendry. 1982. Laboratory protocols for evaluating the fate of chemicals in water and air. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Final Report. EPA-600/3-82-022, Washington, DC. 

Comparability of environmental chemical data encompasses the concepts of precision, accuracy, and representativeness. Because accuracy and precision depend on the analytical procedure and representativeness depends on the sampling procedure, comparability is greatly affected by the sampling and analysis procedures used in data collection. For the data sets to be comparable, the samples must be collected and handled in a similar manner and the measurements must be obtained under the exact same analytical conditions. The observance of standard field and laboratory protocols and procedures, the use of EPA-approved or standard analytical methods and accepted QA/QC practices assure data comparability. 

Mill, T., Hendry, D.M., Mabey, W.E., Johnson, D.J. (1980) Laboratory protocols for evaluating fate of organic chemicals in air and water. EPA-600/3-80-069. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC. 

Torres RM, Kuhn R (1997), Laboratory protocols for conditional gene targeting, In Torres RM, Kuhn R (Eds), Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp. 1-167. 

Mire-Sluis AR, Thorpe R (1998), Laboratory protocols for the quantization of cytokines by bioassay using cytokine responsive cell lines, J. Immunol. Methods 211 199-210. 

While I have made a clear distinction between laboratory technique-based and landscape-based models, the distinction is more artifactual than representative of fundamental differences. The laboratory technique-based models do not include mutation or crossover, so the only landscape property they depend on is the affinity distribution p(Ka). Once mutation is included, some type of relationship between specific sequences and their affinities must be included. Landscapes are one means of including this relationship. Work with landscape-based models does not include laboratory techniques or parameters because the questions posed in this work do not require this added level of complexity and because of the paucity of experimental data to define actual affinity landscapes. If the landscape work is to solve actual laboratory protocol problems, the laboratory and chemistry details need to be included. Ideally, future work will include mathematically rigorous analyses of landscape-based models that incorporate chemical and experimental details. 

---