Dr.NutriCornell said:It is worth asking what the claim would look like if it were false.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. Posting only so the count is not one.
PeptideSynthNJ said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
PeptideSynthNJ said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. The version of this that has an answer is narrower than the version being asked. Narrow it and it becomes tractable; leave it broad and the thread will produce nine confident and incompatible replies.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
Trusted third-party HPLC & mass spectrometry analysis. Verify peptide purity with the lab the community relies on. Independent. Accurate. Transparent.
Verify Your PeptidesEst. 1998. The synthesis house behind the vials you send for testing. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff, batch-specific COA with every order.
Browse GL BiochemOne concrete data point for the thread. If you are comparing against somebody else’s result, check that you are comparing the same measurement taken the same way. Most of the apparent contradictions in these threads dissolve at that step.
Moderator note: a couple of off-topic posts removed. Thread quality here is what the rules are for. Keep it up.