this seems to be a nice project for the people with 3D printing devices. It is not that complicated, the metal part probably would be more challenging.
08.03.2026 14:12
👍 0
🔁 0
💬 0
📌 0
this seems to be a nice project for the people with 3D printing devices. It is not that complicated, the metal part probably would be more challenging.
The idea of organizing all the dependencies in a requirement file is really useful. I will use it more often.
I started using Google's Antigravity IDE. I ran a simple test: in silico digestion and proteotypic peptide classification from FASTA file. Within minutes, everything was set up in a new GitHub repository. I was really impressed.
github.com/41ison/Prote...
I had no idea it could be ordered from another company.
I like the idea, not the propaganda. "CAP4 arylation is completed in 5 min versus 1 h for IAA alkylation". Nobody uses 1h IAA or CAA incubation and TCEP reduction can be done in 5 min, they are doing in 30 min. Nothing special to see here.
In "principle", "principal" component analysis cool. The problem with autocorrect in the legend.
Foi a primeira vez que ouvi a pesquisadora se pronunciar sobre a polilaminina no #roda-viva. Fiquei assustado! Ela acha que está conduzindo o estudo do paraquedas.
Who are those guys? 4 retractions in a row today in ACS Omega!
I don't like those ultra-short gradient also, but we can't fight the data, as long as the experiment was properly done.
Well, that is it. Nyquist-Shannon theorem still holds. Despite beliefs, the data is the data.
This isn't validation. It just wast of time and reagents. Validation is when you find something significant and validate in an on-off system or suppressed gene dosage.
Agreed on the validation necessity. Strongly disagree on the method!
Yep, sometimes mad druids ask for WB as a form of validation for MS results.
A bit aggressive 😂
As far as I can say, they are consistent and work well. I often perform re-analysis of controlled datasets, and the changes are minimal.
I've seen several recent preprints using DIANN v1.9. DIANN is great and stable in several versions, except for v1.9. We tested at least 7 different versions in a publication 👉 pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/...
v1.9 will likely provide more IDs, but at the cost of precision.
If I may add something while this is a pre-print, it would be a re-analysis using any other version of DIA-NN, except v1.9.
Idea: A very rich person with Astral creates controlled mixtures and runs in conservative setup vs light speed Astral. If it's true, it's true.
This is by far the most important piece of advice I've read on social media lately.
Definitely not.
I once reviewed a manuscript that seemed ok, until I opened some raw files to do usual check and noticed that the TMT tags were incomplete in most of the spectra. Unfortunately, there are researchers that precludes access to data to force collaborations.
This kind of statement should be forbidden in science: "The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request." Transparency must be encouraged. If there is no transparency, there is space for distrust.
1. Data available upon reasonable request." It is an MS journal 🤦♂️.
2. 50-100 mM TCEP is the stock concentration. Sample prep is 10x lower.
3. Overnight incubation with 100 mM 🤔.
4. With some effort, we can produce any artifacts.
Not yet. Positron has so many features and constant updates that make it hard to follow. I will try the databot at some point.
BTW, you will like to follow github.com/juliasilge
The main features I'm using are the "explain" and "fix" when I get some error in my code (lots of tricks with regex) and the autocomplete for repetitive code, like renaming things. If you prefer the chat, probably the providers have different performances.
Not happy with the choice on the DIANN version 1.9. To me, there is DIANN and DIANN 1.9!
QE and E480. Seems to be good
Finally, something with "cost-effective" in the title that hasn't used Astral.
MDPI again!