Tween-20 versus Triton-X 100

Hi all-
I am trying to figure out my protocol for fluorescence in situ based a
protocol for not fluorescent in situ. The former uses Triton-X 100
while the latter uses Tween 20. Is there is big difference between
these? Will one of them give me better results?

Thanks!
Wendy

> Hi all-

I believe they r both surfactants, so they will destroy the cell plasma
membrane. However, there may be subtle differences between the two.

Hope that helps.

ST

Hi Wendy,

as they both seem to work, I'd go ahead with any of them. Usually
people use what's available on the shelf, so there will be different
protocols for the same purpose. Both are nonionic detergents with
quite similar properties.

Normal preparations of TritonX100 (but not Tween 20 AFAIK) are known
to have some absorption in the UV range as Triton has an aromatic
ring, but that should not matter regarding fluorescence, as you
probably will use "ordinary" dyes which work in the visible range. If
you expect any problems or just in case, run a fluorescence spectrum
at working concentration.

Best regards,

Wolfgang

Am 08.06.2007, 15:06 Uhr, schrieb Wendy Grus <[Only registered users see links. ]>:


No, both consist of an alkyl-tail, a ring and a {hydrophilic} polyethylene
glycol head. Triton is tert-C8-Phenyl-E9.6, Tween 20 is C12-sorbitan-E20.
For fluorescent studies I would probably prefer the Tween, as the aromatic
ring in Triton absorbs in the UV (alternatively, use hydrogenated Triton
X-100). Note that both are industrial detergents wich may be contaminated
with oxidising or fluorescent impurities, get MolBiol grade stuff to avoid
problems.

For detergent properties see
[Only registered users see links. ], [Only registered users see links. ] or a
useful booklet published by Calbiochem.

[ZoeChi]

Thank you