CJC-1295 with and without DAC: what the modification does

On the subject in the title: CJC-1295 with and without DAC: what the modification does Working notes rather than a conclusion.

Putting the numbers in the first post, because a question about a compound without them turns into a question about somebody's impression of it.

CJC-1295, monoisotopic mass near 4113.6 Da, 28 weeks of my own notes, and 9 lots from 4 suppliers with a purity figure on each. That is the whole basis of what follows.

What I want checked is the reasoning I have built on top of it, not the figures themselves.

Where I have landed on CJC-1295, having got it wrong once in public: the direction is clear, the magnitude is not, and anyone quoting a precise magnitude has borrowed it from somewhere that did not measure it.

Reading rather than contributing, but this is the most useful thread I have found on it.

The opening post describes the usual case. This is about the unusual one.

Small correction to my own earlier position on CJC-1295. I had the units the wrong way round, which changes the conclusion by an order of magnitude and therefore changes it entirely.

Building on post #2 rather than restating it.

Reconstitution volumes in this family are often small enough that dead volume in the syringe is a meaningful fraction of the dose. A fixed-needle insulin syringe is worth the trouble here specifically.

The part I am sure of is shorter than the part I have written.

Post #4 put the caveat in the right place and I want to underline it.

Two things can be true about CJC-1295 at once: the mechanism is plausible and the evidence for the size of the effect is thin. Most of the argument here is people defending the first against attacks on the second.

Before the thread moves on from CJC-1295 — what is the sample size behind the claim? I am not being difficult; I have seen the same figure quoted from an n of four and from an n of four hundred.

Effects reported at the level of appetite are the most consistently described and the most mechanistically direct for the ghrelin-receptor compounds, which is not what most people are taking them for.

I would rather be precise about what I do not know than vague about what I do.

I disagree with the framing of CJC-1295 above, and I think it is a substantive disagreement rather than a terminological one. Setting out why, so it can be checked.

The reasoning depends on an assumption that is doing a lot of work and is never stated. If the assumption holds, the conclusion follows. I do not think it holds generally.

Post #8 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

Storage: these are lyophilised short peptides and are generally reasonably stable dry and considerably less so in solution. Reconstituting only what will be used within the period the supplier's own data covers is the conservative approach.

The number is defensible. The precision I gave it is not.

Post #7 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

CJC-1295 with and without DAC: the version with a drug affinity complex binds albumin covalently and persists for days. The version without it does not persist. Supplier labelling frequently does not distinguish them clearly, so confirming which you have is important.

Building on post #11 rather than restating it.

CJC-1295 was covered in the wiki last year and the page has a review date on it, which is a better starting point than my memory of a thread.

Filing a mild objection to the consensus on CJC-1295. Mild because I might be wrong; an objection because nobody has addressed the case that does not fit.