InsuranceTom said:The useful move here is to separate what is established from what is widely repeated.
This is where I part company with the consensus forming above. I would resist the confidence. Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
The figures, for anyone assembling their own picture. One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number. A figure without its method cannot be checked, and an unchecked figure is how this community accumulates folklore.
Dr.ObesityLA said:Half of what this board was certain about two years ago has since been quietly dropped, and nobody went back to correct the threads.
There is a second half to this that has not been said yet. Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it. The narrow version usually has an answer; the broad version usually does not, and answering the broad one is how a thread stops being useful.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsA narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What did you change at the same time, and can you separate the two now?
OP back with an update, since a thread like this is useless without one.
Update — I was wrong in the opening post, specifically about the direction. Correcting it here rather than editing it away.