What I have: racemisation · orforglipron · 37 °C.
I can predict the outcome but I cannot explain it, which means I will get the next case wrong.
I would like to know how confident the field actually is about this.
So what is the mechanism, and how well established is it?
At 37 °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. A stereocentre inverts. Identical mass, identical formula; only a chiral method or a peptide map with a chiral digestion sees it at all. That is why the two measurements are not interchangeable and why an unchanged purity figure after an excursion to 37 °C is weak evidence: the method may simply be integrating the degradant along with the parent and reporting the sum as one peak.
Answer first: the degradation pathways worth knowing are hydrolysis, deamidation, oxidation, aggregation and adsorption, and each has a different trigger and a different mitigation.
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.
| Pathway | Dominant when | Detected by |
|---|---|---|
| Deamidation | Solution, neutral to alkaline pH | RP-HPLC, +1 Da on MS |
| Oxidation | Light, trace metals, peroxides | RP-HPLC, +16 Da on MS |
| Hydrolysis | Solution, extremes of pH | RP-HPLC, fragment masses |
| Aggregation | Agitation, interfaces, high concentration | SEC, visual haze; often invisible on RP-HPLC |
| Freeze-concentration damage | Freeze-thaw of buffered solution | SEC, loss of recovered content |
The part that matters: 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.
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.
Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.
Browse resultsThe honest answer is that most reported "degradation" is adsorption and dilution error rather than chemistry.
Light exposure matters for tryptophan-containing sequences and for anything with a chromophore. Amber vials and a closed box are free mitigations.
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.
Sequence determines which pathways apply, so general statements are general.
Swirl, never shake. Aggregation is a handling problem more than a time problem.
Worth being precise here: asparagine and glutamine are the deamidation risk, and methionine is the oxidation risk.
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.
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.
Apparent loss in a dilute preparation is usually adsorption rather than degradation and is worth ruling out first.
At dilute concentrations, suspect adsorption before you suspect chemistry.
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.
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.
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.
Specifically, this is answerable from the chemistry rather than from anecdote, which is unusual and welcome.
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.
Cold, dry, dark, still. Those four words cover most of the mitigation.
edited 21 Aug 2026 by Dr_Signe_Baldursdottir — removed a claim I could not source
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.