LabKate said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
No disagreement with LabKate. One condition attached. Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
LabKate said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. Sending this to two other people who asked me the same thing last week.
Moderator note: a post naming a supplier has been edited. Discuss suppliers in the review sections, not here. Carry on.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference Standardsjames_edin said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
This is my experience too, for whatever a second data point is worth. Nothing to add that would improve it.
james_edin said:Yes, and the corollary is less popular: if the reasoning holds, it also holds where it produces an answer we do not like.
Adding the part of the answer the thread has not reached. Start from the measurement rather than the conclusion. Almost every disagreement here turns out to be two people measuring different things and comparing the numbers anyway.