Your English writing platform
Discover LudwigExact(6)
The *.pkl processed data were searched against a NCBI database via a Mascot search engine using a peptide mass and MS/MS tolerance of 0.5 Da.
The searches were conducted using a peptide mass tolerance of 1.0, variable modifications of Carbamidomethylation (C) and Oxidation (M), and a maximum of one missed cleavage.
External calibration was performed using a Peptide Mass Standard kit (Perspective Biosystems, Framingham, MA).
Monoisotopic mass values with an unrestricted protein mass using a peptide mass tolerance of ±100 ppm were used for identification.
Finally, mass spectra of digested gPDH and dgPDH were compared using a peptide mass fingerprint (PMF) strategy.
Proteins were identified and quantified using MS/MS ion search of Mascot 2.2.06 search engine (Matrix Science, London) with iTRAQ-8plex quantification, using a peptide mass tolerance of 150 ppm, a fragment mass tolerance of 0.4 Da and two missed cleavages.
Similar(54)
SEQUEST searches specified that peptides should have a maximum of two internal tryptic cleavage sites and possess two tryptic termini, with methionine oxidation and cysteine carbamidomethylation as possible modifications and used a peptide mass tolerance of ±1.4 Da and a fragment ion tolerance of 0. The search results were converted into pepXML format.
Automatic external calibration was performed using a peptide mixture with reference masses 904.468, 1296.685, 1570.677, and 2465.199 Da.
Automatic external calibration was performed using a peptide mixture with reference masses 904.468, 1296.685, 1570.677, and 2465.199.
Traditionally, the activity A0 Mp) needed to obtain an absorbed dose D in a tumour with mass m and using the biodistribution for a peptide mass of Mp = 0.03 nmol is obtained by: A 0 0.03 = D a ~ m S m ← m. (2).
A MS/MS Ion search was performed using the N quantification, with a peptide mass tolerance of ±0.1 Da and a fragment mass tolerance of ±0.1 Da.
Write better and faster with AI suggestions while staying true to your unique style.
Since I tried Ludwig back in 2017, I have been constantly using it in both editing and translation. Ever since, I suggest it to my translators at ProSciEditing.

Justyna Jupowicz-Kozak
CEO of Professional Science Editing for Scientists @ prosciediting.com