256 vs. 1024 channels
J.Webster at centenary.usyd.edu.AU
Mon Mar 18 18:13:11 EST 2002
Hi Calman et al
The vast majority of work here is in your category of "less exacting"
so we routinely use 256 channels unless there is some real need for
The extra resolution does make a lot of sense for DNA; when I was
looking at tumour ploidy some years ago we only had 256 channels, and
it would have been much easier to distinguish those double peaks if
1024 channels had been available.
Very sharp CFSE profiles might also benefit from higher resolution.
Storage space is becoming less of an issue now, but remember that a 1024-
channel data file is four times bigger than the same data in 256 channels.
Let's use our resources wisely, but don't toss out the infant with the
At 13:57 18/3/2002, Calman Prussin wrote:
>Several years back when we were analyzing large numbers of events on G1
>Power PC Macs, I started doing our data collections using 256 channels,
>rather than the typical 1,024. The speed of analysis was increased
>markedly with this change.
>Common sense tells me that there should be little if any difference in the
>data generated using either 256 or 1024 channels. Perhaps my histograms
>will look a little smoother?
>Question: What real advantage is there to using 1024 rather than 256
>channels? Does it add significantly to the precision of DNA, CFSE or CBA
>assays? For less exacting applications (phenotyping, intracellular
>cytokines) is there any real benefit?
Joseph Webster, Flow Cytometry Facility
Centenary Institute, Sydney, AUSTRALIA.
More information about the Cytometry