Look at the sentence below:
There are residues, such as Ala95, Arg702, Thr1155, Asp1424, or Asp1447, that can be substituted by more than one amino acid.
One of my editor has changed the "that" to "which" in the above sentence.
1. If the editor has considered the "which" as a defining (restrictive) term (as is rarely used in British English) and made the edit, I would agree with the editor's correction as in that case it doesn't change the meaning (as "that" is strictly used as a defining (restrictive) term).
2. On the contrary, if the editor has considered the "which" as a non-defining (non-restrictive) term (as is generally considered in both American and British English) and made the edit, I would not agree with the editor's correction as in that case "which can be substituted by more than one amino acid" becomes non-defining/non-restrictive/parenthetical phrase and thus the main clause "There are residues, such as Ala95, Arg702, Thr1155, Asp1424, or Asp1447" is incomplete.
It is actually based on the consideration stated in 2 that my editor has done this correction as she has blindly taken for granted that there can never be a comma before "that".
Confirm if my understanding as stated in 1 and 2 is correct. Thanks in advance.
You should avoid the issue of a parenthetical phrase, which must be set off by commas, placed between the noun and its restrictive relative clause. 1. Separate the ideas into two sentences.
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
You should avoid the issue of a parenthetical phrase, which must be set off by commas, placed between the noun and its restrictive relative clause.
1. Separate the ideas into two sentences.
There are residues that can be substituted by more than one amino acid. Examples are Ala95, Arg702, Thr1155, Asp1424, and Asp1447.
2. Do not use a comma-delimited phrase.
There are