This report explores the issues faced by life scientists when visualizing proteins and specifically examines the products and technologies used in protein staining and/or labeling, detecting and imaging. While protein staining techniques are becoming faster, easier and more sensitive through chemiluminiscence, fluorescence and chemifluorescence, traditional reagents such as Coomassie blue and silver stains are still regularly used by researchers for certain applications. An overview of these products and researcher preferences is provided in this report. After staining and/or labeling, there are several options for imaging proteins on gels or membranes, including scanning densitometers, charge-coupled device cameras, scanning laser fluorescence detectors, storage phosphor systems and/or video-camera based systems. Because this instrumentation is becoming more and more integrated, complete protein imaging systems have emerged. However, researcher needs for these imaging systems are diverse and reflect a wide range of different scientific objectives. The report will assist marketing professionals and product developers in understanding their target market's techniques, product preferences, preferred suppliers, level of satisfaction with the current technologies, definitions of quality and unmet needs in protein visualization. The final report is based on the opinions of a worldwide panel of research scientists. It provides you with the answers needed to better serve the protein science market and is available at a fraction of what it would cost to conduct a custom study similar in size and scope. Protein Visualization is the fourth installment in our series-which details all aspects of protein research-and focuses specifically on the products and techniques used to stain and/or label, detect and image proteins. As researchers' expectations for obtaining high-quality imaging data have increased, the tools and techniques of protein science research have evolved to allow for the development of more powerful instrumentation capable of increased sensitivity and finer resolution. Improvements to traditional imaging methods are also allowing for detection of proteins in low or trace amounts and the more accurate quantification of proteins. Companies that hope to be successful in developing and marketing cutting-edge protein visualization technologies must understand the challenges that protein scientists face today in their research. Report Highlights More than 500 researchers engaged in protein visualization participated in this survey between October 3 and November 28, 2001. The report details findings for each and every question in the survey. Below is a glimpse of some of the findings derived from different questions: • Protein researchers indicate that they predominantly use a scanning densitometer to image one-dimensional polyacrylamide gels (PAGE), while they use a video camera-based system to image one-dimensional agarose gels. • One-dimensional PAGE is by far the most popular technique for performing qualitative evaluations, quantitative measurements and obtaining publication-quality figures. • The number one factor that would influence a respondent's lab to purchase either of these imaging systems over the other is "high image resolution." • Colorimetric stains appear to be the top choice among respondents performing protein analysis/characterization, identification and purification procedures. • Respondents use different types of stains and labels depending upon the procedure they perform, however, the primary reason they select one particular stain or label is its "ability to detect low quantities of proteins." (Electronic copy also includes 1 print copy)
| 
