[Lab] 12th independent test on SGN — 98.1% on a claimed 98.0%, and the trend is the interesting part
Result first, context after: 12th independent test on SGN — 98.1% on a claimed 98.0%, and the trend is the interesting part. Everything below is how it was ordered, stored and sent.
Pulling the figures out of the title: 98.1% and 98.0%. All of it is written down as it happened rather than reconstructed.
Every claim I could trace in this board went back to about four papers. That was a sobering afternoon.
Kept a reconstituted vial too long out of curiosity and learned something about solution stability I would rather have read.
Happy to answer the boring questions. Those are usually the ones worth asking.
- SGSGN source pageSangon Biotech (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. · Shanghai · 95% here, rank 8 · shop at sangonbio.com →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use. In this board that is not a formality — it is the reason the clinical evidence base is as thin as it is.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Agreed — and the preclinical to clinical gap is where nearly all the overclaiming happens.
Left up. It distinguishes rodent work from human work, which is the standard on this board.
Research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
Adding the standing caveat — research material is not approved for human use, wherever you are.
Assumed regulatory status was static and it was not. Checked again this year and the answer had changed where I live.
Careful. Regulatory status differs by jurisdiction and has changed; a confident global statement is going to be wrong somewhere.
What jurisdiction are you asking about? The answer has changed in several.
What jurisdiction are you asking about?
rosa_almeida is right that a pure something-else is still something else.
This. Mass spectrometry for identity, not just an area percent, because a pure something-else is still something else.
Small fix — fifteen residues, not seventeen. The sequence is public and easy to check.
Was there identity confirmation, or only a purity figure?
Agreed — cheap to make is a double-edged fact and it explains a lot about this corner of the market.
pentadecapeptide, fifteen residues, and the sequence is public
a fifteen-residue peptide is easy to make and easy to make badly
Went and read the primary rodent papers after arguing about a summary for a week. They are much narrower than the threads suggest.
regulatory status varies by jurisdiction and it has moved recently
ask for the mass spectrum, not just the purity number
Agreed — cheap to make is a double-edged fact and it explains a lot about this corner of the market.
Disagreeing with this line: that paper is in a rodent model and it is being quoted as a human result.
- 1Agreed — cheap to make is a double-edged fact and it explains a lot about…7 comments in this branch · started by u/vikram_mbeki