[Lab] Homopeptide BPC — Medutest came back 98.6% against a claimed 98.0%
Homopeptide BPC — Medutest came back 98.6% against a claimed 98.0%. One vial, one service, one member paying, which is the only kind of result this board should treat as evidence.
The relevant figures are 98.6% and 98.0%, and they come from the same log I have kept the whole time.
Bought small, tested identity first, and only then thought about anything else. That order felt right.
Why identity, not purity, is the test to buy here.
This is a short peptide with a published sequence. Synthesis is not difficult, which means the market is wide and the analytical question shifts. A high area-percent figure tells you the sample is homogeneous; it does not tell you the homogeneous material is the sequence you ordered.
Mass spectrometry, with the theoretical mass alongside the measured one, converts a purity claim into an identity claim. It costs a little more and it answers the question that actually matters. Ask for it, and ask suppliers whether they can provide it before you order — the answers are informative in themselves.
I will update this if the picture changes rather than quietly leaving it up.
- HOHomopeptide source pageHunan Aslsen Technology Co., Ltd. · Changsha · 91% here, rank 16 · shop at homopeptide.net →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
Purity by area percent tells you the sample is homogeneous. Mass spectrometry tells you what the homogeneous thing is. For a short peptide, the second question is the one worth paying for.
It is a fifteen-residue peptide with a published sequence, which makes synthesis straightforward and makes identity verification the meaningful test rather than an optional extra.
Added a jurisdiction tag to the regulatory question. The answer differs and has changed.
short peptides are cheap, which cuts both ways
Yes. Nothing here is approved for human use and that should be the first line of every thread, not the last.
identity, quantity, stability — three separate questions
Is that a clinical claim or a preclinical one?
Correction: that study was in rodents. Worth stating explicitly since the thread has been reading it as clinical.
Regulatory classification differs between jurisdictions and has changed in several of them recently. Any answer to a status question needs a place and a date attached.
Yes.
pavel_kravchenko is right that a pure something-else is still something else.
Small fix — fifteen residues, not seventeen. The sequence is public and easy to check.
- 1Yes. Nothing here is approved for human use and that should be the first…8 comments in this branch · started by u/pavel_kravchenko