2 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2025
    1. In recent years, peptides have received increased interest in pharmaceutical, food, cosmetics, and various other fields. The high potency, specificity, and good safety profile are the main strengths of bioactive peptides as new and promising therapies that may fill the gap between small molecules and protein drugs. Peptides possess favorable tissue penetration and the capability to engage in specific and high-affinity interactions with endogenous receptors. The positive attributes of peptides have driven research in evaluating peptides as versatile tools for drug discovery and delivery. In addition, among bioactive peptides, those released from food protein sources have acquired importance as active components in functional foods and nutraceuticals because they are known to possess regulatory functions that can lead to health benefits.

      This statement suggests a mechanistic advantage for peptides, but it is somewhat broad. A more critical approach would consider whether these interactions have been quantified in vivo or only in vitro. Are there limitations in tissue penetration for larger peptides or specific types of receptors that could affect efficacy?

  2. Oct 2025
    1. China and the US have had a largely symbiotic relationship since the1980s regarding labor, manufacturing, and technology. In the early 1980s, thegovernments of the two countries agreed that US corporations could contractwith Chinese organizations to move their manufacturing operations to China toutilize the competent work and low wages of Chinese employees. As a result,approximately one sixth of US manufacturing jobs were lost to Chinese facto-ries.

      The author claims that the relationship between China and the U.S. has been "largely symbiotic," but this statement may not be logically supported by the evidence provided. A truly symbiotic relationship implies mutual benefit, yet the example focuses mainly on U.S. job losses. The argument might be valid in structure but lacks balance in demonstrating how both sides benefited. More evidence on what the U.S. gained (e.g., lower consumer prices or corporate profits) would strengthen the validity.