three years of PeptideMeter threads, summarised so you do not have to read them
three years of PeptideMeter threads, summarised so you do not have to read them. It is the sort of thing everyone half-believes and nobody writes down.
Inter-lab variance on this assay runs roughly a point either way, driven mostly by gradient and integration. Two results inside that band agree; they do not disagree quietly.
A series across separate lots estimates a process. Repeat tests on one lot estimate the measurement. Both are useful and they answer different questions.
Area percent and net peptide content are different measurements and most reports give one. Quote which, or the comparison downstream is meaningless.
Sceptical readings welcome. The confident ones are the ones I distrust.
best — the order this archive was captured in
The template is vendor, compound, batch, service, claim, result, and who paid. Every one of those fields exists because a result missing it has been argued about here before.
Fourth lot from the same supplier in the log now and the band has been tight the whole way. That consistency is the actual finding.
How many separate lots does your series cover?
Push back: three tests on one lot is one lot. It tells you about that lot and almost nothing about the next one.