SuperScript VILO vs SuperScript II: A Comparison for First Strand Synthesis Performance

SuperScript VILO vs SuperScript II for First Strand Synthesis

SuperScript VILO offers a significantly improved performance over SuperScript II in first strand cDNA synthesis. Its enhanced efficiency makes it the preferred choice for reliable and reproducible results in reverse transcription applications.

Performance Comparison

SuperScript VILO is reported to be exponentially better than SuperScript II. This dramatic improvement affects both the yield and consistency of cDNA generated from RNA templates. Users note that SuperScript II is the least efficient among widely used reverse transcriptases, showing inferior reproducibility across samples.

Enzyme Composition and Enhancements

SuperScript VILO appears to be an upgraded version, based on SuperScript IV enzyme technology with added cofactors or additives designed to boost enzyme efficiency. These additives improve reverse transcription speed and sensitivity compared to SuperScript II. Thus, VILO combines advanced enzyme engineering with formulation enhancements.

Comparison with Other SuperScript Versions

SuperScript III also surpasses SuperScript II in performance, but it still falls short of the VILO formulation. Superscript II is generally considered outdated relative to these newer versions because of lower efficiency and variable reproducibility outcomes.

Recommendations for Use

• Use SuperScript VILO whenever possible for first strand synthesis to maximize cDNA yield and reproducibility.
• If VILO is unavailable, SuperScript IV is the next best alternative due to its modern enzyme improvements.
• Avoid SuperScript II when consistent and efficient reverse transcription is critical. Lower efficiency with SS II can compromise downstream analyses.

Key Takeaways

• SuperScript VILO significantly outperforms SuperScript II in first strand cDNA synthesis.
• VILO likely incorporates SuperScript IV enzyme plus additives for enhanced efficiency.
• SuperScript III is better than SS II, but inferior to VILO.
• SuperScript II is not recommended due to poor reproducibility and efficiency.
• SuperScript IV serves as a strong alternative if VILO is unavailable.