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.

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.

I would be cautious about generalising from the CJC-1295 example above. It is a good example. It is one example.

On analysis: these are short peptides and generally straightforward chromatographically, which means a poor purity result is more likely to reflect the synthesis than the method.

Reading rather than answering, but this is the post I would point somebody at.

A definition problem is doing most of the work in this CJC-1295 discussion. Once the term is pinned down I suspect the disagreement mostly goes away and what is left is small.

Right, and stated more narrowly than I would have dared to state it.

Post #112 and I disagree about the size of the effect, not about the direction.

On analysis: these are short peptides and generally straightforward chromatographically, which means a poor purity result is more likely to reflect the synthesis than the method.