The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
he found an activity associated with SARC that would phosphorylate glycerol. And he published it in JBC. It co-purified with the protein through numerous steps of purification. And so in addition to having the ability to phosphorylate tyrosine, antibodies that got phosphorylated on tyrosine, on the purified protein, there was also an activity there that phosphorylated glycerol.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
he got this KM now of like... micromolar.
the KM, in other words, a 50% concentration of glycerol you needed for it to be phosphorylated was something like 100 millimolar. Enormous concentration. Huge. Like 100 to 1,000 fold higher unit ever found in a cell.