Talk:Peptide stability table

Tagged {{primarysources}}. For the approved products this column comes from labelling and is fine. For every research compound it currently says "not established", which is honest, but earlier revisions of this table carried numbers that were not attributable to anything.

I would like the rule written down: no figure in this column unless it comes from labelling or from a published study, and the basis column must say which. Extrapolations get "not established", not a number. — — StabilityStig (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Support, strongly. The numbers that were in the table came from vendor pages, which per Project:Verifiability are a source for what the vendor claims and nothing else. A blank is more informative than a borrowed number. — — ColdChainCleo (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Support. I would add a second rule: a figure is meaningless without the specification it was measured against, so where labelling gives an interval the row should say what the interval preserves — potency, related substances, or both. That is often available and we are currently dropping it. — — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

Agreed in principle; in practice labelling often does not state the specification either. I have added the point to §How to read the columns rather than to the table, which would become unreadable. Leaving the tag until the whole column has been re-checked. — — StabilityStig (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2025 (UTC)

Re-checked the eight approved-product rows against current labelling. Two in-use intervals had changed since the table was written. Corrected, and I have added the date of the labelling revision to my edit summary so the next person can tell how stale the row is. — — PrimarySrcPatia (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)

Request for comment. Most rows for research powders read "−20 °C, lyophilised, extrapolated". The extrapolation rests on the general proposition that lyophilised peptides are more stable frozen, which is well supported in the protein-formulation literature but is not a statement about any of these compounds specifically.

Question: is a general-principle extrapolation acceptable in a table cell, or should those cells read "not established" like the reconstituted column? — — RfC_Rasmus (talk) 13:02, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Acceptable, with the basis column doing the work. The general principle is sourced, the cell is labelled as an extrapolation, and the alternative is an almost entirely empty table. This is different from the reconstituted column, where the earlier numbers implied study-specific knowledge. — — AnalyticalAnnie (talk) 15:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Acceptable. I opened the earlier thread and I think the distinction holds: "colder is more stable for a lyophilised peptide" is a textbook statement; "28 days at 2–8 °C" is a study result. — — StabilityStig (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Not acceptable as written. If the basis is a general principle then the cell should say so — "general principle" rather than "extrapolated", which reads as though something was extrapolated from something about this compound. — — PuffRemoverPax (talk) 11:33, 18 April 2026 (UTC)

Reading consensus as acceptable, wording to change: the basis label should distinguish an extrapolation from a related product from an application of a general principle. I will make that change unless anyone objects in the next week. — — RfC_Rasmus (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2026 (UTC)