MS/MS sequence confirmation: what it costs and when it is worth it — what changed since

Posting this under the heading it deserves: MS/MS sequence confirmation: what it costs and when it is worth it — what changed since Everything below is what sits behind that.

Working through the identity arithmetic and I would like it checked.

tirzepatide has a monoisotopic mass close to 4813.5 Da. On an electrospray instrument I would expect to see the multiply charged series rather than the intact singly charged ion, so for the doubly charged species I calculate (4813.5 + 2 x 1.00728) / 2, and for the triply charged the analogous expression.

The observed values in the report sit within a few ppm of those. My question is what that actually establishes, because I have seen people treat a mass match as a purity result and I do not think it is one.

On the opening post — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Common adducts: sodium adds ≈22, potassium adds ≈38 compared to hydrogen. A [M+Na]+ peak is common and its mass is predictable from the base mass.

Mass accuracy is expressed in parts per million. It is the difference between observed and theoretical mass divided by theoretical mass, multiplied by a million. A high-resolution instrument in good calibration achieves low single-digit ppm on a peptide of this size.

What mass accuracy establishes: the measured mass is consistent with a specific composition. What it does not establish: purity, sequence order, stereochemistry, or the absence of an isobaric species. Every one of those requires something else.

Purity and identity are different questions: LC-MS establishes that the species at a retention time has the expected mass. It does not establish how much of the sample is that species (that is what LC-UV purity answers).

Worth separating two things that post #2 runs together.

Electrospray ionisation produces multiply charged ions. For a 4 kDa peptide you expect mostly 2+, 3+, and 4+ charge states. Reading an electrospray spectrum means recognizing the envelope, not looking for one peak.

This follows post #4 rather than contradicting it.

Quantitation by MS: most quantitation is done by LC-UV detection at 214 nm, not by MS, because extinction coefficients are better known. MS can quantify if an internal standard is used but that requires preparation.

Sample matrix effects: if a sample is dissolved in a complex matrix, other compounds in the matrix can suppress the peptide signal. Clean samples give higher sensitivity than dirty samples.

Tandem mass spectrometry: MS/MS fragments the molecular ion and uses fragment masses to confirm identity and detect modifications. A simple identity confirmation by LC-MS does not address post-translational modifications or impurities with the same or very close mass.

Desalting before analysis: some samples need desalting to remove salts that suppress the peptide signal. Report whether desalting was used, because it can affect the apparent ionization efficiency and the reported purity.

Charge states observed: for semaglutide (4113.6 Da) the doubly charged ion appears at m/z ≈ 2057, triply charged at ≈ 1371, quadruply at ≈ 1029. Those are the positions to look for; the heights depend on the ionization efficiency.

Calibration matters: a high-resolution instrument out of calibration can report mass with ppm error large enough to be uninformative. Check when the instrument was last calibrated before trusting the reported accuracy.

On post #9 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.

Resolution: "high resolution" commonly means <5 ppm across the mass range. Unit-resolution instruments achieve ±1 Da at best and cannot distinguish two species differing by less than 1 Da in total mass.

Quantitation by MS: most quantitation is done by LC-UV detection at 214 nm, not by MS, because extinction coefficients are better known. MS can quantify if an internal standard is used but that requires preparation.