how much of what we believe about TB-500 actually comes from research peptides threads
Genuine question, and the title is the question: how much of what we believe about TB-500 actually comes from research peptides threads. Ordered under a name that turned out to cover two different molecules. Nobody’s fault but mine for not asking. Asked for identity confirmation on an unusual line and got a mass…
Net peptide content accounts for counterion, water and residual solvent. On some of these compounds the gap between purity and net content is substantial and entirely honest.
Storage conditions came back specific rather than generic when I asked. That told me somebody had actually done stability work.
Small fix — that is net peptide content, not purity. Both are on the certificate and they differ substantially here.
Correction: that name covers two different molecules and the thread has been discussing both as one.
Asked HJ which lines they keep in regional stock versus make to order and got a clear split. It changed what I ordered.
research-use-only material is not approved for human use
catalogue depth is not the same as catalogue quality
That method was developed for a different compound class and would not resolve the impurities you are asking about.
Agreed — identity first for anything off the well-travelled list. The purity number is meaningless until you know what it is pure of.
Net peptide content on the certificate?
handling and storage vary enormously across this catalogue