As a comparison, which instrument is more perferred for DNA quantification , Naondrop or Quantus (supplied from Promega)?

sure Naondrop

Regards

Hello! I use Quantus to measure low concentrations of RNA or DNA (0.05 ng/microL and more). In compare to Quantus, Nanodrop doesn't require additional kits.I use Nanodrop for total RNA/DNA or plasmid measurments.

Nanodrop is easy to use and more accurate. Also requires just 1microlitre or so which is convenient in term of saving more of your samples. So my preference is nanodrop

NanoDrop is better for accurate quantification

Nanodrop is great for routine PCR work but I would suggest that you use fluorometric quantification (Quantus) for sensitive applications such as high-throughput sequencing. The dye used in fluorometers selectively bind to dsDNA and it can give a more accurate quantification, especially in lower concentrations (if I remember correctly, <40ng/uL). Nanodrop measures all nucleotides so you can, in principle, read low-quality DNA such as sheared fragments from harsh extraction protocols. For regular PCR this is fine though.

In our lab, we use spectrophotometric methods for routine PCR as it is cheap. I have had experience with high Nanodrop readings but when I checked using agarose gels, the DNA were mostly sheared, likely due to over-beating of the starting material during lysis.

When it comes to high-throughput sequencing applications though, quantity AND quality/purity of DNA is of utmost importance so we opt for the Qubit or Quantus systems. It can be expensive (that's why we still use the Nanodrop) but I think it is worth it.

Quantus is more sensitive because of a reagent specific, enabling I to quantify small concentrations through a kit with fluorochrome, since it is nanodrop is less sensitive when compared to Quantus, yet it tells you if your sample has contaminants like: Guanidine, Ethanol, Among others.

It is important that you quantify and qualify as samples of the two equipments.

I add either EtBr or Pico Green to a sample along with a DNA of known concentration creating a standard curve. These can be spotted directly on a UV Box for a ball-park number or if you have a fluorescent plate reader, you can generate hard numbers. Thermo Fisher sell a kit now called Quant-iT that sounds like it does the same thing. Pico Green should get you into the picogram range for sensitivity. Quant iT claims down to 25 pg sensitivity.

It depends on the purpose you will use your sample, for routine procediments: Nanodrop

Read:

Comparação na quantificação de amostras DNA e RNA por meio de espectrofotometria e fluorimetria Tiago César Moreira · Luciana de Andrade AgostinhoArquivo disponível · Poster · Maio de 2017- 10.13140/RG.2.2.24760.44801

It depends on what you need it for. Routine quantification of DNA can be done with a Nanodrop,it is easy and as most already said do not require additional reagents and preparation. However, it is not as sensitive as it also picks up background (if your sample is dirty, protein and RNA) during the measurement where other methods rely on specific dyes that binds specifically to the DNA and the dye is measure instead of your DNA which makes it much more sensitive. For everyday DNA quantification a Nanodrop is fine.

Nanodrop is good for routine quantification or low volumen samples.

Quantus is good for small concentrations of DNA.

I used Quantus to quantify bacterial DNA for sequencing.

Quantus. Unless your DNA is column purified, you will get wildly inaccurate readings from nanodrop due to protein and/or polysaccharide contamination. Quantus and other fluorimetric measurement methods are not sensitive to such contaminants.

Nanodrop is easy to use and more accurate.

NanoDrop is better for DNA quantification

Nanodrop is good for quantitative estimation of DNA / RNA in Pre PCR.

i agree with Henry Christopher Janse van Rensburg

It is completely incorrect to say that Nanodrop is more accurate. These are both physicochemical methods for measuring biomolecules. If you have completely pure DNA, they will both be equally accurate unless your machine is out of calibration, or reagents/buffers/standards have gone bad. In fact, unless you can be absolutely certain that you do not have polysaccharide/protein or RNA/DNA contamination (depending on whether you're measuring DNA/RNA), fluorometry will always be more accurate because the intercalating fluorescent dyes will not bind to contaminants. On teh other hand, these molecules will absorb light in the 260/280 nm wavelengths. As a cautionary tale, even column purification will not get rid of certain polysaccharides from certain DNA preparations. Nanodrop is badly affected by polysaccharide contaminants, fluorometric methods are not.

qubit is more accurate since its hase proprietary dye binds with nucleic acid and give us concentration in microsecond