Accepted answer
At 25 °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 cyclic imide at Asp, eighteen daltons lighter, which then reopens to a mixture including the iso-aspartyl form — same formula as the parent, different molecule, and invisible to a mass-only method. That is why the two measurements are not interchangeable and why an unchanged purity figure after an excursion to 25 °C is weak evidence: the method may simply be integrating the degradant along with the parent and reporting the sum as one peak.
Answering this needs the physical state, since a dry powder is protected from most of these and a solution is protected from none.
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 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.
Metal-catalysed oxidation of methionine is documented across peptide and protein formulations and is why chelators appear in some formulations.
Swirl, never shake. Aggregation is a handling problem more than a time problem.
5Two lots stored differently, reassayed at a year — the difference was smaller than I expected. – Dr_Idris_Coulibaly 6 months ago add a comment