What I have: a GLP-1 receptor agonist · six weeks · 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.
Can someone derive this rather than assert it?
six weeks is 42 days, which at 37 °C is on the order of 386 refrigerated days. 37 °C is 32 kelvin above the 5 °C middle of a 2–8 °C refrigerator. The ten-degree rule of thumb — degradation rate roughly doubling per 10 K — makes that about 9.2 times the refrigerated rate, which is an order-of-magnitude statement and not a shelf life. In solution the routes that matter are hydrolysis of the backbone, deamidation at Asn, and physical association — the first two cost content, the third costs neither until it precipitates. Over 42 days at 37 °C you should expect all three to have moved, and a purity figure to have noticed only some of them. Reconstituted material has no certificate; the one in the box describes the powder.
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.
To be exact about it, 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.
Cold, dry, dark, still. Those four words cover most of the mitigation.
Analytical standards and reagents with traceable certificates. Every quantitative result you read inherits the accuracy of the standard behind it.
Shop standardsStart with the sequence, because which pathways are available depends on which residues are present.
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.
Mechanically, 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.
Swirl, never shake. Aggregation is a handling problem more than a time problem.
edited 1 Apr 2026 by halvard_ness — 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.