Stated plainly: aggregation · cagrilintide · 2–8 °C.
The empirical answer seems settled. The explanation does not.
If the honest answer is that nobody knows, I would rather hear that than a plausible story.
What is the causal chain, and where does it stop being established?
At 2–8 °C it can show up as either, and which one depends entirely on whether the product still elutes under the main peak. Purity is a ratio of areas, so a degradant only costs purity if the method resolves it. Content is a mass against a standard, so a degradant costs content whenever the parent is consumed — resolved or not. Molecules associate without any covalent change, so the mass is unchanged and a reversed-phase run — which is performed in organic solvent — mostly dissolves the evidence before it can be measured. That is why the two measurements are not interchangeable and why an unchanged purity figure after an excursion to 2–8 °C is weak evidence: the method may simply be integrating the degradant along with the parent and reporting the sum as one peak.
Start with the sequence, because which pathways are available depends on which residues are present.
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.
| State | Condition | Usable window | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lyophilised solid | −20 °C, sealed, dry | 24–36 months | Supplier guidance |
| Lyophilised solid | 2–8 °C, sealed | 12–24 months | Supplier guidance |
| Lyophilised solid | 25 °C, sealed | 4–8 weeks | Extrapolated (Arrhenius) |
| Lyophilised solid | 40 °C, sealed | 1–2 weeks | Extrapolated |
| Solution, preserved | 2–8 °C | 28 days | USP microbiological convention |
| Solution, preserved | 25 °C | 3–7 days | Extrapolated |
| Solution, unpreserved | 2–8 °C | 24 hours | USP microbiological convention |
Windows for the solid state are chemical; windows for solution are microbiological and usually shorter than the chemical limit.
Worth being precise here: light exposure matters for tryptophan-containing sequences and for anything with a chromophore. Amber vials and a closed box are free mitigations.
Metal-catalysed oxidation of methionine is documented across peptide and protein formulations and is why chelators appear in some formulations.
Nothing here is medical advice, and research-use compounds are not approved for human use.
Swirl, never shake. Aggregation is a handling problem more than a time problem.
HPLC purity, identity confirmation and quantified content on the vial you actually hold. Reports arrive with the chromatogram attached, not just a number.
Submit a sampleFounded 1998. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff and 200+ patents. The synthesis house behind a great many of the vials that get sent out for testing - batch-specific documentation with every order.
Visit GL BiochemAnswering 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.
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.
Adsorption losses at low concentrations are quantified in formulation studies and are the reason carrier proteins are used in dilute preparations.
At dilute concentrations, suspect adsorption before you suspect chemistry.
Asparagine and glutamine are the deamidation risk, and methionine is the oxidation risk.
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.
Worth being precise here: 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.
Aggregation at air-liquid interfaces is established from surface-tension and particle-count studies and is the basis for anti-agitation handling guidance.
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.
edited 30 Apr 2026 by loss_on_drying — added the method parameters
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.