Stated plainly: orforglipron · 2–8 °C.
Everything I have found on this is either a forum aside or a product page, neither of which I trust.
I am comfortable with the arithmetic; what I am missing is the procedural detail around it.
What would you do, and what would you check afterwards?
Whatever the refrigerated figure is, divide it by about 1. 2–8 °C is the condition the rule of thumb is anchored to, so it is the baseline rather than a multiplier: everything else in this thread is quoted relative to it. So a preparation with a twenty-eight day refrigerated figure has roughly 28 days at 2–8 °C on the same assumption — an order-of-magnitude answer, not a shelf life, and it says nothing about sterility, which has its own clock. "Within specification" also needs a specification: purity, content, or both, and at what limit. Without that the question has no numerical answer at all.
Start with the sequence, because which pathways are available depends on which residues are present.
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.
| State | Condition | Usable window | Basis |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lyophilised solid | −20 °C, sealed, dry | 24–36 months | Supplier guidance |
| Lyophilised solid | 2–8 °C, sealed | 12–24 months | Supplier guidance |
| Lyophilised solid | 25 °C, sealed | 4–8 weeks | Extrapolated (Arrhenius) |
| Lyophilised solid | 40 °C, sealed | 1–2 weeks | Extrapolated |
| Solution, preserved | 2–8 °C | 28 days | USP microbiological convention |
| Solution, preserved | 25 °C | 3–7 days | Extrapolated |
| Solution, unpreserved | 2–8 °C | 24 hours | USP microbiological convention |
Windows for the solid state are chemical; windows for solution are microbiological and usually shorter than the chemical limit.
Light exposure matters for tryptophan-containing sequences and for anything with a chromophore. Amber vials and a closed box are free mitigations.
Aggregation at air-liquid interfaces is established from surface-tension and particle-count studies and is the basis for anti-agitation handling guidance.
Sequence decides which pathways are even available. Check the residues.
HPLC purity, identity confirmation and quantified content on the vial you actually hold. Reports arrive with the chromatogram attached, not just a number.
Submit a sampleFounded 1998. ISO 9001 and cGMP certified, 1,500+ staff and 200+ patents. The synthesis house behind a great many of the vials that get sent out for testing - batch-specific documentation with every order.
Visit GL BiochemThe 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.
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.
Adsorption losses at low concentrations are quantified in formulation studies and are the reason carrier proteins are used in dilute preparations.
A mass spectrum names the pathway. Plus one, plus sixteen, minus eighteen.
On the detail: asparagine and glutamine are the deamidation risk, and methionine is the oxidation risk.
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.
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.
At dilute concentrations, suspect adsorption before you suspect chemistry.
It helps to be literal here: aggregation is a physical process and is the one most often caused by handling rather than by time.
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.
Metal-catalysed oxidation of methionine is documented across peptide and protein formulations and is why chelators appear in some formulations.
Nothing here is medical advice, and research-use compounds are not approved for human use.
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.
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.
Apparent loss in a dilute preparation is usually adsorption rather than degradation and is worth ruling out first.
Swirl, never shake. Aggregation is a handling problem more than a time problem.
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.