-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Describe fragment ions #18
Labels
Comments
Could you elaborate more on this? So far we have no mention of charges anywhere in the standard! |
This is more for a discussion.
Complex fragmentation spectra, e.g. containing multiple species of a
peptide or multiple peptides, might require a detailed description of the
fragment ions including sequence, PTMs, losses, ...
On the other side, such a description could open Pandora's box by including
too many features.
2017-07-31 15:46 GMT+02:00 stefanks <[email protected]>:
… Could you elaborate more on this? So far we have no mention of charges
anywhere in the standard!
—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#18 (comment)>,
or mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/APEZhW5j38lHw4GX4ZKhYUhqsAmDK1vhks5sTdrTgaJpZM4Onjhi>
.
--
\|||/
(o o)
----ooO-(_)-Ooo----
Don't worry about life; you're not going to survive it anyway.
http://computproteomics.bmb.sdu.dk
|
Do you think these would be a common use case of the notation? Personally, I think the "info" tags would be a good place for charges and neutral losses. They might be necessary to get agreement between the ProForma sequence and the experimental spectrum, but I wouldn't want to present them to a biologist. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The nomenclature could also be used to describe fragment ions. Then we might have to consider neutral losses, ...
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: