I have troubles understanding a text I am reading. I am currently studying a course on biotechnology and I have to read a paper on peptides, but I do not understand something. The following text I do not fully comprehend:
Lack of oral bioavailability remains the major limiting factor in peptide drug development
despite advances in delivery technology, formulation techniques, and medicinal chemistry. In addition, most
peptides have difficulty crossing the intestinal barrier, making it difficult to claim that they can treat CNS disorders.
Because of their superior selectivity and role as endogenous central neurotransmitters, peptides would be
ideal candidates for the treatment of CNS disorders. However, there are exceptions, including chlorotoxin for the treatment of glioblastoma cells and nerinetide for the treatment of brain neurons in ischemic stroke.
I do not understand how the authors of this text went from the first 2 sentences (stating negative issues about using peptides) to the bold part, stating they would be ideal candidates.
Am I missing something here in understanding the English? Perhaps with 'would' they mean that peptides would be ideal, except because of the 2 aforementioned disadvantages they are not?
However, then the last sentence, starting with 'however', seems odd? I always figured that however is used when you want to contradict a previous statement, but here they use however (linked to the sentence above stating that peptides are ideal drugs) in a rather odd way because first they say that peptides are ideal drugs and then they say 'however some peptide drugs already exist'.
Or should I read the sentences (all of them) separately and not link the bold part with the 2 parts above nor link the last part (starting with however) with the parts above? That is all I can think of, but that seems to make no sense whatsoever.
Any insight is welcome.
