Adding the numbers, since they settle part of this. 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.
A narrower follow-up, since the general answer is now clear:
What would you measure differently if you were starting again?
PeptideSynthNJ said:For anyone reading later: the numbers in this thread are worth checking against a primary source before you act on them, including mine.
Worth saying that the confident version of this is more useful to the person writing it than to the person reading it.
Certified reference materials, analytical reagents, and research-grade standards for peptide verification. Trusted by laboratories worldwide.
Shop Reference StandardsPeptideSynthNJ 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, and it stops being right at the edges. The general case is well behaved; the interesting cases in this thread are all at the boundary where the general case breaks.
PeptideSynthNJ 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 reframing is the part I needed. Printing the relevant bit and taking it with me.