Found this through search years later and it is still the best discussion of the question, so adding one thing. For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine. Half the figures circulating in this community trace back to a secondary summary that dropped a qualifier.
PeptideSynthNJ said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Agreed, and one caution: a single measurement is not a measurement. Anything that moves day to day needs a trend before it means anything at all.
PeptideSynthNJ said:If you are going to change something, change one thing and give it long enough to express itself.
Thank you — that is the clearest version of this I have read, and I have read a lot of them. I will report back once I have actually tried it.
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View ResultsClosing the loop on my own question.
Coming back a few months on. It held. Nothing dramatic to report, which is the report.
VendorMark said:Nothing dramatic to report, which is the report.
Can confirm. Same sequence, different timescale.