Mass spectrometry for peptide identity verification — March 2026

jennifer_SEA said:

True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group.

Adding a me-too, because a thread of one person's experience is not much use.

jennifer_SEA said:

True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group.

Coming at jennifer_SEA’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

One concrete data point for the thread. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.

Following on from jennifer_SEA — and this may be the naive question:

What would you measure differently if you were starting again?

HPLC_Greg said:

One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.

This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. This treats a plausible mechanism as a demonstrated one. Plausible is where you start looking, not where you stop.