unpopular opinion: method development is massively overrated
Posting this because I searched for it and got nothing useful. Setup: 5mg, week 26, sulphur burps present but not ruining anything. I changed exactly one variable — LC-MS — and tracked it for 15 weeks. Result: a difference, but a small one, and well inside what I would call noise if someone else posted it. So I am…
state the method: column, gradient, detection wavelength, injection volume
This is the correct method framing. Column and gradient are load-bearing fields.
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
the gradient is doing the separation work, not the column alone
the detector wavelength matters more than people think
Disagree but this is the good kind of wrong — it is specific enough to be checked.
This is the correct method framing. Column and gradient are load-bearing fields.
That is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning.
Strongly agree. Largest single impurity tells a different story than total purity.
Strongly agree.
Counter-anecdote: opposite result, same dose. Which mostly tells us the variance is huge.
instrument quality is less important than analyst consistency