PedsEndoPhilly said:The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. It helps to say which part of this you are uncertain about. A precise question gets a precise answer; a general one gets everybody’s favourite anecdote.
One concrete data point for the thread. Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath. An edited-away mistake is invisible to the next person who makes it.
One thing that is still open after PedsEndoPhilly’s answer:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPeptideSynthNJ said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
I am going to disagree with the direction of travel here. The thread has converged on the tidiest answer rather than the best-supported one, and those are not the same thing.
PeptideSynthNJ said:Keep the original post as written when you update it, and add the correction underneath.
True, with the qualification that this is a self-selected group. The people for whom it did not work post less, and that shapes everything we think we know.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.