hans_munich said:Worth answering the question that was asked rather than the one behind it.
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.
Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Following on from hans_munich — and this may be the naive question:
Was that from a primary source or from a summary of one?
PeptideDetective — Independent Peptide Analytics
Community-driven peptide testing and vendor rating platform. Transparent results. Unbiased analysis. Trusted by thousands.
View Resultslucas_SP_BR said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
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.
lucas_SP_BR said:One habit that pays for itself: post the method alongside the number.
No disagreement with lucas_SP_BR. 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.