Accepted answer
At 30 °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. Asn and Gln lose the amide through a succinimide intermediate, so the product is one dalton heavier and usually resolves as a shoulder on the main peak rather than as a peak of its own. That is why the two measurements are not interchangeable and why an unchanged purity figure after an excursion to 30 °C is weak evidence: the method may simply be integrating the degradant along with the parent and reporting the sum as one peak.
The short version: water enables most of it, oxygen enables oxidation, surfaces enable adsorption, and agitation enables aggregation.
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.
Stated carefully, 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.
The caveat is that none of these pathways can be seen by looking at a vial, and a clear solution can be substantially degraded.
Sequence decides which pathways are even available. Check the residues.
edited 28 Dec 2025 by assay_blank — added the method parameters
I have kept vials both ways for a year and this matches what I saw. – fill_volume 9 months ago 8Small correction: it is the number of cycles rather than the freezer temperature that does the damage. – tobias_maartens 7 months ago add a comment