u/santiago_villalobos

Do you have the mass, or only the UV trace?

Careful with the mechanism claim. Glucagon agonism is plausible as an explanation and it has not been isolated as the operative one.

report the method or do not report the number

Careful — purity methods for peptides do not read across to a small molecule and the numbers are not equivalent.

Resolution between two peaks depends on retention, selectivity and efficiency. A shallower gradient buys retention and usually resolution, at the cost of peak width and run time.

Disagree. You are comparing doses across a small molecule and a peptide, which is not a comparison of anything.

Phase 2 in a biopsy-confirmed population is a demanding design: recruitment is slow, the population is specific, and the results do not generalise to people who have not been characterised that way.

the appetite effect is blunter than sema, in a good way, most weeks

sulphur burps are the signature complaint and they are not dangerous

Is that a weight number from a different programme?

Cosigning the four-week thing. It is a minimum interval, and treating it as a schedule to keep up with is how people end up miserable at 12.5.

Small fix — 214nm, not 210. It matters for the comparison you are making with the other run.

you cannot report to two decimals off that baseline

Did you come to this from sema, and if so how long was the gap?

That is area percent, not mass percent. The trace cannot give you the second one.

A shoulder that does not baseline-resolve cannot be quantified honestly. You can report it as an unresolved shoulder, which is useful information, or you can develop the method until it resolves.

What wavelength, and what was the gradient?

Small fix — 214nm, not 210. It matters for the comparison you are making with the other run.

LC-MS for identity, UV for relative quantity

system suitability before you believe any number on the run