From the other side of the consultation, briefly. 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.
If somebody has the primary source to hand I would rather cite it than paraphrase it.
One concrete data point for the thread. Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look. It is a small discipline and it changes what you notice.
One thing that is still open after DoseLogDan’s answer:
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 ResultsLabKate said:Say what you would expect to see if you were wrong, before you look.
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.
Ask again with the specifics and you will get a better answer than this one.
Moderator note: two posts asking for a source have been merged into one. Please search the thread before asking again. Carry on.