Does dulaglutide adsorb measurably to the vial wall at 8 mg/mL?

Stated plainly: dulaglutide · 8 mg/mL.

I have worked this out and I would like someone to find the error, because I suspect there is one.

My working so far, for the record, is below, and I am fairly sure the error is in the unit conversion rather than the algebra.

How many significant figures are actually justified here?

Aggregation is a physical process and is the one most often caused by handling rather than by time.

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.

In practice, 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.

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

Nothing here is medical advice, and research-use compounds are not approved for human use.

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

The short version: water enables most of it, oxygen enables oxidation, surfaces enable adsorption, and agitation enables aggregation.

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.

The underlying point is that 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.

Adsorption losses at low concentrations are quantified in formulation studies and are the reason carrier proteins are used in dilute preparations.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

Light exposure matters for tryptophan-containing sequences and for anything with a chromophore. Amber vials and a closed box are free mitigations.

Deamidation kinetics for asparagine in peptides are well characterised and strongly sequence-dependent: the residue following the asparagine dominates the rate, with glycine and serine at the n+1 position accelerating it by an order of magnitude relative to bulkier residues. That is why two peptides in the same buffer at the same temperature can have quite different shelf lives.

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

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