Stated plainly: 99.4% · cagrilintide.
The units are where I keep going wrong, so please be explicit about them.
I have sanity-checked the order of magnitude and it seems right, which is not the same as being right.
Where is my error, and what is the correct working?
99.4 per cent is at the top of what stepwise synthesis delivers on a chain this long, and it is reachable rather than fictional. Every coupling is high-yielding and none is quantitative, so the deletion and truncation sequences that survive purification are what occupies the remaining 0.6 per cent. Above roughly 98 per cent you are fighting the purification rather than the synthesis, which is why a 99.4 per cent figure on cagrilintide deserves a method question — column, gradient, wavelength — rather than either belief or dismissal.
The honest answer is that the achievable range of plausible purity figures for a given vial is wider than most people expect.
Temperature affects the dynamics of molecular conformation, and if a peptide has proline residues that interconvert on the chromatographic timescale, the peak will split or shoulder at low temperature and collapse at high temperature.
| Component | Typical share | Counted in purity? | Counted in content? |
|---|---|---|---|
| Target peptide | 88–94 % | Yes, as main peak | Yes |
| Related impurities | 1–3 % | Yes, as other peaks | No |
| Counter-ion (TFA or acetate) | 2–8 % | No | No |
| Residual water | 2–6 % | No | No |
| Bulking agent, if present | 0–40 % | No | No |
The fraction of your main peak that is actually your target versus isomers, fragments or related sequences is invisible without complementary identity testing.
The ICH Q3A impurity thresholds and the relevant pharmacopoeial chapters all specify method validation requirements that almost no research-grade certificate claims to meet.
Compare purity within a single laboratory on the same method, never across laboratories.
edited 1 Jun 2024 by seven_day_half — updated for the 2026 guidance change
Aggregated, published test results and vendor ratings built from submitted batches. Methodology stated, dataset browsable, no listing fees.
Browse resultsThe short answer is that two competent laboratories on identical material will disagree, and the disagreement is almost always explainable by method differences.
Tailing factor measures peak shape, and a badly tailing peak spreads into the region where small impurities live, forcing tangent-skim integration that assigns tail area to the main peak.
On the detail: mass on column affects detector linearity and peak overlap — overloading broadens peaks and hides neighbours, while underloading improves resolution but loses sensitivity.
I would be careful about over-reading a single measurement — treat it as a data point, not as ground truth.
If you are ranking vendors, specify a method and have all samples tested at the same place.
To be exact about it, identity and purity are orthogonal, and a high purity says almost nothing about whether the peak is actually what you think it is.
Column pore size affects mass transfer — a 100 Angstrom packing on a 5 kDa peptide restricts diffusion, broadening the peak and potentially hiding small impurities in the shoulders.
Mobile phase additive choice affects ionisation and peak shape — TFA gives sharp peaks but suppresses mass spectrometry signal, formic acid gives worse peaks but preserves signal.
Proline conformer interconversion kinetics are well-characterised and the half-life is of the same order as the chromatographic peak width at room temperature.
The caveat is that purity without identity is only half an answer — a high purity does not mean the peak is actually what you think it is.
The practical summary: ask for the chromatogram and the method, and ignore the headline number until you have both.
It helps to be literal here: the method matters more than the vial, which is why specifying a method buys you far more than changing suppliers does.
Integration of the shoulder — whether you use perpendicular drop or tangent skim — determines what area gets assigned to the main peak versus the impurity table.
The Arrhenius relationship for peptide degradation is the basis of accelerated stability testing and also governs how quickly methods drift with temperature.
If you only pay for one test, pay for quantified content. Purity is the number everyone quotes and content is the number that changes what you do.
More usefully, area percentage is not mass percentage, and conflating the two is the most common misreading of a purity figure.
Detection wavelength matters because 214 nm sees the peptide backbone while 280 nm sees only aromatic side chains — so truncation impurities lacking a tryptophan are invisible at 280 nm.
Inter-laboratory studies on identical peptide material routinely find half-a-per-cent to a full-per-cent spreads in reported purity on the same sample.
In practice: ask for the chromatogram, check the method section, check the lot number against the vial, and set your accept threshold before you see the result rather than after.
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.