Dr.AddMedPHL said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
That is right for the common case. Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Dr.AddMedPHL 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. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. No action needed from anybody.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsDr.PulmRoch said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale. The detail I would add is minor and it is already implied above.
Dr.PulmRoch said:Whether it is right for the case being asked about depends on a detail that has not been given.
Coming at Dr.PulmRoch’s question from a different direction. If two explanations both fit, the useful question is which one predicts something the other does not. That is answerable; arguing about which sounds more plausible is not.