PeptideStack
5.2kquestions
20kanswers
220users

Does a GLP-1 receptor agonist adsorb measurably to the vial wall at 10 mg/mL?

Asked 23 Jun 2024Modified 22 months agoViewed 21k times
9

What I have: a GLP-1 receptor agonist · 10 mg/mL.

I can do the algebra. I am not confident about the conversion factors.

If there is a standard way to lay this out, I would rather learn that than invent one.

What is the general form of this calculation?

peptide-stability
peptide-stability

The chemistry of peptide degradation: deamidation, oxidation, hydrolysis, aggregation and fibrillation, and how temperature, pH, ionic strength,…

908 questions
content-assay
content-assay

Quantified content: how many milligrams of peptide are actually in the vial, measured against a calibrated reference standard. A separate test…

476 questions
storage
storage

Storage conditions and their evidence base: minus twenty degrees for powder, refrigerated for solution, protection from light, and what the…

701 questions
shareeditfollowflag
HL
askedharriet_lonsdale35k13823 Jun 2024

5 Answers

Accepted answer first, then by votes
57

Accepted answer

10 mg/mL is 10000 µg/mL — roughly 1000 times the concentration at which surface adsorption is measurable. Losses to glass and plastic matter in the low microgram-per-millilitre range, where a monolayer on the wall is a real fraction of what is in solution. At 10 mg/mL that same monolayer is a rounding error. If you see an apparent loss at this concentration, suspect the dilution step or the assay before you suspect the wall.

Answer first: the degradation pathways worth knowing are hydrolysis, deamidation, oxidation, aggregation and adsorption, and each has a different trigger and a different mitigation.

Hydrolysis cleaves the backbone, most readily at aspartate-proline and aspartate-glycine sequences, and is acid-catalysed. In a dry solid it barely proceeds at all.

On the detail: light exposure matters for tryptophan-containing sequences and for anything with a chromophore. Amber vials and a closed box are free mitigations.

Deamidation via the succinimide intermediate is well characterised, with sequence-dependent rates highest for asparagine-glycine motifs.

Sequence determines which pathways apply, so general statements are general.

At dilute concentrations, suspect adsorption before you suspect chemistry.

edited 8 Aug 2024 by kwn_analytical — corrected a unit error in the worked example

shareimprove this answerflag
KA
answered · acceptedkwn_analytical147k35818 Jul 2024
4This should be linked from the help pages. – mz_4113 9 months ago
add a comment
Sponsored

Sigma-Aldrich - Certified Reference Materials

Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.

Shop standards
62

The relevant point is that a mass shift of plus one dalton is deamidation and plus sixteen is oxidation, so degradation is often visible in a mass spectrum if anyone looks.

Deamidation converts asparagine or glutamine to the corresponding acid via a succinimide intermediate, adding one dalton. It is base-catalysed, accelerates above neutral pH and is the dominant aqueous pathway for many peptides.

A mass spectrum resolves most of this: minus eighteen is dehydration or succinimide, plus one is deamidation, plus sixteen is oxidation, and an unchanged mass with a shifted retention time is an isomer.

Aggregation at air-liquid interfaces is established from surface-tension and particle-count studies and is the basis for anti-agitation handling guidance.

Swirl, never shake. Aggregation is a handling problem more than a time problem.

shareimprove this answerflag
HP
answeredh_pergande71k15826 Jun 2024
2Adding for future readers: the domestic leg after delivery is the part you control. – claudia_ferrante 8 months ago
add a comment
42

The honest answer is that most reported "degradation" is adsorption and dilution error rather than chemistry.

Adsorption onto glass and plastic is significant at low concentrations — micrograms per millilitre — and negligible at milligrams per millilitre. It is the usual explanation for an apparent loss in a dilute preparation.

On the detail: freeze-thaw cycling drives aggregation through concentration at the ice interface and pH shifts as buffer components crystallise out at different rates. Each cycle costs something.

Apparent loss in a dilute preparation is usually adsorption rather than degradation and is worth ruling out first.

Sequence decides which pathways are even available. Check the residues.

shareimprove this answerflag
HC
answeredhaze_check9.3k1613 Oct 2024
27

Answering this needs the physical state, since a dry powder is protected from most of these and a solution is protected from none.

Aggregation is physical: peptides unfold at air-liquid interfaces and associate. Shaking maximises that interface, which is why swirling and shaking produce visibly different outcomes on the same vial.

The caveat is that none of these pathways can be seen by looking at a vial, and a clear solution can be substantially degraded.

A mass spectrum names the pathway. Plus one, plus sixteen, minus eighteen.

shareimprove this answerflag
JW
answeredj_wierzbicki69k1487 Jul 2024
5Aliquoting before the first freeze is the advice I wish I had read two years ago. – helena_vidmar 2 months ago
6Any published figure for how much a collapsed cake actually retains? – bac_or_bust 4 months ago
add a comment
19

Concretely, this is answerable from the chemistry rather than from anecdote, which is unusual and welcome.

Oxidation targets methionine, cysteine and tryptophan, adding sixteen daltons per oxygen. It is catalysed by trace metals and promoted by dissolved oxygen and by light.

Metal-catalysed oxidation of methionine is documented across peptide and protein formulations and is why chelators appear in some formulations.

Cold, dry, dark, still. Those four words cover most of the mitigation.

shareimprove this answerflag
C8
answeredcoldpack_8850k3710 Aug 2024

Your answer

Ask PeptideStack is a static archive. Posting is closed, but the norms are worth stating: answer the question that was asked, show your working, cite the trial or the certificate, and say plainly where the evidence runs out.

Not medical advice. Research-use-only compounds are not approved for human use.