#bioresearch

(A word of warning: this essay series will contain spoilers of the Jekyll and Hyde novella. And mentions of murder and blood. And injury related biology. So if you won’t survive listening to a basic first aid course, read no further. )

This collection of ramblings, that might be called a collection of essays, will concentrate more on the novella itself, with visual aids from the various fancomics.

First of all, Hyde is supposed to be very creepy in behaviour. Frightening, calm, collected, uncaring of consequences. Pure evil. “Satanic”, to quote Henry Jekyll. (It’s Victorian times, of course there is mention of religion and comparisons to Satan and demons and things of religion, but I’ll disregard those, because they are just a part of the time period.)

On the matter of his portrayal as a handsome, murdering, short-ish creature, I have good news. The horror movies are wrong. Looking at you, the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I’m judging you for a terrible potrayal of a wide group of literary characters. Anyway. Let’s get to my theories.

As one of our semi-narrators (Enfield, in case anyone is interested) retells in the chapter Story of the door: “There is something wrong with his appearance; something displeasing, downright detestable” and “(…) gives a strong feeling of deformity, although I could not specify the point” Sound familiar? You know what theory uses same kind of fear? Uncanny valley. Robotics.

The Uncanny valley theorem, is basically, that feeling of unease when you see something that feels wrong, somehow, but you can’t pinpoint why. Like playing a computer game or a video where the sound is a few seconds too late or the movements seem unnatural, too slow or too quick. You know why slowly smiling at someone is creepy? Because of a combination of uncanny valley and evolutionary caution of anything out of the ordinary.  To quote this article: “An unexpected break in humanness can be an unpleasant shock, one that sets off fearful and distrustful instincts”. Look again at the quotes from the book.

Hyde is creepy, because he triggers the uncanny valley effect, with his behaviour and way of speech. “Hoarse”, “whisperly”, “snarl”, all animalistic, predatory things, and humans were a prey species, apelike beings and we have a fear of being hunted and an instinct of fear of that. As further proof of Hyde’s creepiness, I present you this page of Search for Henry Jekyll, open at own risk. It shows another aspect of the uncanny valley effect: the fear of bodily mutilation, on of basic human fears. Anything that looks not part of the “healthy human being that is not showing signs of pain/suffering/whatever”- formula makes this fear appear.

Now we have that discussed, lets take a look at his shortness. Various characters remark on his smallness, but all the times Hyde is seen is at night, or in winter, or generally at times where its really difficult to really judge how a person looks. And at no point is it mentioned that he would be unnaturally short, just below average. And taking in account all the mentions of a lack of deformity, and that being unnormally small would be considered a deformity in 1880s…. Just trust me on this. My guess is that he’s small for 1880s standards. Okay?. Oh and there is a mention of him being lithe, but very strong. Like bash a man’s head in strong.

To hear it, once more, from the person who knows Hyde as well as himself: “ (…) [Hyde] was much smaller, slighter and younger than Henry Jekyll” (chapter Statement of the Case). And he later remarks that it is “(…) as though the body of Edward Hyde had grown in stature”. My guess would be that Hyde is just walking in this sneaky, slightly hunched manner that gives him the appearance of shortness.

And to end this, here’s a collection of tiny thought fragments:

Quess what? Hydes reason of existene is to be Jekylls freedom, his liberation of societys restrictive ways. But that plus transformation will be another essay.

And the potion will be another one.

And the murder of Garew will probably also get discussed so that I can finally rant about its stupidity. I could murder someone better than Hyde.

image: pale skinned human forearm, on the left with abstract vaguely X-pattern in brown and on right same pattern has purple added to create a new design, with arches between and around the brown lines.

Thsi is the last one on this theme. I promise.

(If you can’t survive an episode of any crime series ever, read no further.)

Lets get to the original novella.

The only murder in the novella, the murder of Sir Danvers Garew on 18th of October. Personally I find this murder frustrating because of the lack of information. The motive is never stated. The murder method is unlikely to go unnoticed.

I quote “hailing down a storm of blows, under which the bones were audibly shattered.” That’s all the information we have. The murder weapon is described as being a cane of some hard and expensive wood, and breaking at the end of this killing. Still, I doubt its ability to inflict such damage. Human bones do not break with ease. The Hyde in the book is not so strong to be able to break bones.

Back to my lovely graph.

Based on this (LINK) graphic the Hyde prefers to murder people by stabbing them in the upperbody. In most cases the sword would meet the bone and taking in account the amount of force it takes to stab someone, break. To prove my point, the next time you eat a steak, stab it. Then imagine having to stab it about ten till twenty times deeper. That’s not even nearly how much force it would take to impale a human being. Now, to be able to stab thorough someone, you would have to avoid the ribs and the spine and get it straight enough for the blade not to break and all that on a probably moving target that fights back. Which would be very difficult.

So, Hyde, the next time you really want to murder someone, without breaking your apparently unbreakable sword… Please. Try not to hit the bones. Stab in the lower abdomen, pull the sword to the side and then up. Tilt it a bit to stab upwards to destroy as much as possible. 

Basically, to make the Murder Experience tm more authentic:

Let people die slowly unless you really 100% kill ‘em. The human body is made to last. It will try to stay alive until it has no other choice but to die.

Bone won’t be cut unless you have an axe or a sword that you need two hands to lift up. The Guillotine was invented because sometimes the head didn’t get cut off in one hit. Try to replicate that amount of force with a walking cane or a thin sword. Not gonna work. The neck doesn’t break unless it gets a really strong force applied to it.

Bones also don’t break that easily, but if you jump down from second floor window, you might dislocate something or at worst get a small fracture. Unless you land like they do in parkour or how the army teaches people to land when they jump with a parachute. Don’t jump from high places and place all your weight on your legs.

Stabwounds do bleed like in Tarantino movies if they are in a major arteries.

Beating a human will not only require immerse strength, it will hurt not only the victim but also the attacker. Use daggers, not fists.

Stabbing and slashing will cause bloodloss.  The human body has (in average) 5 liters of blood. At three liters, you are basically dead. All severe wounds bleed a lot. Just… keep that in mind.

 A reminder.

Dear lords and ladies and captains:

do

not

murder.

Nothing listed here is to be tested on living breathing humans. My skills in biology are not to be used to take lives.

TB-500 and Thymosin Beta-4 (Tβ4) are widely studied peptides in the field of cellular repair and tissue regeneration research. A growing area of interest is the TB-500 Fragment (17–23) — a smaller sequence derived from the active region of Tβ4.

The full-length Tβ4/TB-500 molecule contains the entire amino-acid chain responsible for actin-binding, cell migration, and wound-repair pathways. Research shows that many biological effects originate from a specific core sequence within this chain.

The TB-500 Fragment (17–23) focuses on that precise active region. Because it isolates the core sequence, researchers study whether the fragment may retain or enhance certain properties while offering advantages such as structural simplicity or targeted pathway activation.

While both molecules are used in experimental models, the distinction between the full-length peptide and the fragment helps researchers evaluate specific mechanisms, binding interactions, and functional domains.

When it comes to reconstituting peptides, the type of water you use makes a big difference. Here’s the breakdown:

🧬 Sterile Water

Pure water with no additives.

Meant for single use only.

Once opened, you need to use it immediately and discard any leftover.

🧬 Bacteriostatic Water

Sterile water with a small amount of benzyl alcohol (a preservative).

Can be used multiple times from the same vial.

Stays safe for about 28 days after opening if stored properly.

🔍 Key Takeaways

Sterile water = best for one-time use.

Bacteriostatic water = better for repeated dosing or longer storage.

Not every peptide is stable with benzyl alcohol, so check before mixing.

Clean handling is always essential: use sterile tools, store properly, and never reuse contaminated vials.

Bottom line: If you only need one dose, sterile water is fine. But if you’ll be using the vial multiple times, bacteriostatic water usually makes more sense.

Streamline your protein extraction process with Bio Basic's Bacterial Protein Lysis Buffer. Designed for efficient protein extraction from E. coli without mechanical disruption, it enhances yields of soluble proteins and inclusion bodies. Each kit includes lysozyme and DNase I to boost extraction efficiency, while PMSF and DTT maintain protein stability. Simplify your research with this reliable solution.

Mini centrifuge