[PSA] TB-500 is not what most of this community thinks it is
The one-line version is the title: TB-500 is not what most of this community thinks it is. The rest is why. Storage conditions came back specific rather than generic when I asked. That told me somebody had actually done stability work. The three questions to ask before ordering anything from the long tail of a…
For any compound with a thin testing history, identity is the first question. Mass spectrometry against a theoretical mass answers it; an area-percent purity figure does not.
Purity methods differ by compound class. A gradient and wavelength developed for one peptide will not necessarily resolve the relevant impurities of another.
Disagree — that name refers to at least two different molecules depending on who is selling it. The thread needs to be specific.
a secretagogue and a fragment are not the same class of thing
This. Asking what reference standard was used separates a real analytical claim from a plausible-looking one.
That method was developed for a different compound class and would not resolve the impurities you are asking about.
the sequence is the product, everything else is packaging
Small fix — that is net peptide content, not purity. Both are on the certificate and they differ substantially here.
Cosigning the lead-time point. Made-to-order and stocked are completely different propositions and both are legitimate.