UPDATED | 04.24.13 @ 9:30 PM PDT:
Mystery solved — thanks to our anonymous commenters! Great chemists one and all — here is the proof that the PubChem database — at NIH — is in need of revision:
In need of revision, as well, are my graphics — but watching an iMax of “Oblivion” has left me in need of flannel-sheeted bed rest, post haste (!) — so a retooling of my graphics will wait for morning. Thanks, one and all!
[END, UPDATED PORTION.]
A very alert commenter just mentioned that s/he thinks the graphic I’ve constructed for Merck’s MK-5172 is incorrect — that I’ve been using an intermediate step compound/molecule — not the final MK-5172, in my last two posts
So — a simple stick drawing, at right, for easy inspection — mine, above (click it to enlarge), PubChem’s is below. They
look to be the same — to me. Is the PubChem model wrong, as well? Didn’t MRL itself submit the PubChem model?
Can anyone out there enlighten us?
New Merck, Reviewed 
Your structure is missing an unnatural amino acid on the proline carboxy terminus!
So MRL’s submission to the NIH, a federal government website, at PubChem, is also wrong?
That’s odd — I’d think MRL would want to disclose the exact candidate — to prevent any generics’ later claim(s) that the actual active drug candidate. . . is not the one Merck has disclosed as its “invention” — i.e., what it intends to sell (and what it is running its clinical trials on).
Namaste — and thnaks!
Any other opinions? Anyone. . . anyone. . .?
[…] here, for some great chemists’ assists — and more of them, here (left by chemist commenters, at the back-up site, actually) — on this topic, by way of […]
[…] here, for some great chemists’ assists — and more of them, here (left by chemist commenters, at the back-up site, actually) — on this topic, by way of […]
[…] https://anewmerckreviewed.wordpress.com/2013/04/23/okay-trivial-pursuit-will-the-real-mk-5172-please-… […]