what changed for me between week 90 and week 44
Long-ish post, sorry. tl;dr at the bottom.
I have been tracking LC-MS against ApoB for 9 weeks because I could not find anyone who had. The correlation is weaker than I expected, which is itself mildly interesting given how confidently people link the two in here.
Caveats up front: one person, one lab, one assay, no control, and I changed my training in the middle of it, which was stupid.
tl;dr: probably real, definitely smaller than the threads imply, and not worth reorganising your week around.
best — the order this archive was captured in
axis labels included, always
Respectfully this is a sample of one presented as a finding.
Dead space in the needle hub holds a small but non-trivial volume. On low-volume draws that can be several units.
What was the column and what gradient?
area% and mass% are not the same and this whole post conflates them
What was the column and what gradient?
Mechanistically the bit that matters is integration. It explains most of the early profile and a decent chunk of the outcome.
co-elution is real and gradient is usually not enough to resolve it
This is the correct method framing. Column and gradient are load-bearing fields.
Strongly agree. Largest single impurity tells a different story than total purity.
Slight fix: the number was 97.6, not 98.1. Decimal point, but a fairly consequential one.
chromatogram or it did not happen
Not to be pedantic but gradient and method development are being used interchangeably and they are not interchangeable in real life.
Rodent data is rodent data. Dose scaling is not linear and the models tell you what to investigate, not what to expect.
- 1This is the correct method framing. Column and gradient are load-bearing…7 comments in this branch · started by u/sofia_petrescu
- 2What was the column and what gradient?4 comments in this branch · started by u/rina_nascimento