User talk:BPC_Bramwell

One of the references in MOTS-c is a discussion-board post. Per Project:Verifiability that cannot support a factual claim here regardless of how well-informed it is. I have tagged the sentence rather than removing it, in case a publication says the same thing. — Peptide_Pete (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You are right. I have moved the claim to the talk page in case a source appears. — BPC_Bramwell (talk) 06:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

The residue positions in MOTS-c appear to be numbered from the precursor rather than the mature peptide, which puts the substitution three residues off from where the cited source has it. Could you check which convention the source uses? — Peptide_Pete (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Good catch. I have added a note stating which convention the article uses, since both appear in the literature. — BPC_Bramwell (talk) 16:29, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Just to say that Glucagon-like peptide-1 is substantially better than it was a month ago. The restructuring you did says in two sections what four were failing to say. — Chromatokid (talk) 20:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. If anything reads as though the seams are showing, say so — I have been staring at it too long to tell. — BPC_Bramwell (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

The sentence added to MOTS-c takes a tissue-repair result in one animal model and states it as a general property. Project:No original research is aimed at exactly this step. Describing the model, the endpoint and the absence of human data is both permitted and more useful. — MOTSc_Mira (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

You are right. The inference was mine and it has come out. — BPC_Bramwell (talk) 01:28, 15 June 2026 (UTC)