Aggregates: multiples of the monomer mass. May not elute at all under a standard reversed-phase method. A species that does not come off the column does not appear in the area percentage.
[2026 update] A rising related-substance total over six months: degradation or method drift? posts 61–79
This is a continuation of a long topic, addressed by post number rather than by page. Start at post 1 · go to the accepted answer.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
Worth separating two things that post #59 runs together.
Disulfide formation: if a peptide contains cysteine, it can form disulfide bonds with itself or with other molecules. Under oxidising conditions multiple species appear. Reducing conditions (like DTT) convert them back.
post #63 is right about the mechanism and I think understates the practical bit.
Related substances: compounds chemically related to the target peptide but not the target peptide itself. The standard method separates them and reports them as area percent. How related they can be before they exceed specification is a regulatory question.
Coming back to post #63, because the follow-up matters more than the original answer.
Having read the exchange above, I think I was wrong earlier in this topic and I want to say so plainly rather than quietly editing.
The correction was fair and I had been repeating something I had not checked carefully enough.
Aggregates: multiples of the monomer mass. May not elute at all under a standard reversed-phase method. A species that does not come off the column does not appear in the area percentage.
post #67 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Incomplete deprotection: mass higher by the protecting group mass. Usually markedly later eluting. A synthesis artifact from incomplete removal of protecting groups.
Deamidation at asparagine and glutamine: adds 1 approximately. Frequently appears as a close-eluting pair. It is a chemical modification that occurs during storage.
post #70 answers the question as asked. The question underneath it is different.
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my earlier post with a note rather than silently, so the thread still makes sense to read. The error was mine and it was the kind that comes from remembering a figure instead of looking it up.
On post #68 — agreed on the reasoning, with one qualification.
Deletion sequences (incomplete coupling during synthesis): lower in mass by one residue. Chromatographically they usually elute earlier or later depending on the residue's hydrophobicity. They are the most common impurity in solid-phase synthesis.
Truncation products: fragments from incomplete synthesis or from degradation. They elute quite differently from the intact peptide because they are much smaller and have different hydrophobicity. They are usually well separated.
Acetate content: counter-ion content. Trifluoroacetate or acetate from the salt form of the peptide. Affects mass calculations and should be stated on a complete certificate.
Worth separating two things that post #72 runs together.
Off-target structures: if the sequence synthesis goes wrong, a completely different amino acid can be incorporated. The resulting off-target peptide is a structural isomer with the same mass but a different sequence. No chromatographic purity method detects this without a reference standard.
Related substances: compounds chemically related to the target peptide but not the target peptide itself. The standard method separates them and reports them as area percent. How related they can be before they exceed specification is a regulatory question.
Suggested topics
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Particulates in a reconstituted solution: identifying the likely source
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Particulates in a reconstituted solution: identifying the likely source Everything below is what sits behind that. Posting the method first, because I know what the…
|
+15 | 19 | 13k | 9mo |
|
Second pass at: Where impurities in solid-phase peptide synthesis come from
Second pass at: Where impurities in solid-phase peptide synthesis come from Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. A documentation question rather than an…
|
+4 | 8 | 7.2k | 1mo |
|
About the Impurities & related substances category
Deletion sequences, oxidation, deamidation, aggregates, residual solvents, and counter-ion content. This post is a community wiki: any member at trust level 3 or above can edit it, and every edit is recorded…
|
+6 | 10 | 50k | 15h |
|
Deamidation and the close-eluting pair it produces
Deamidation and the close-eluting pair it produces Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. I would like to understand what this number means before I repeat it…
|
+33 | 37 | 46k | 15mo |
|
Residual solvents and scavengers: what is looked for — what changed since
Residual solvents and scavengers: what is looked for — what changed since — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. Posting the method first, because I know what the first three…
|
+37 | 41 | 7k | 2mo |
Related topics — sharing the tags forced degradation, water content, endotoxin testing
| Topic | Participants | Replies | Views | Activity |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Injection volume, overload, and peak distortion
Posting this under the heading it deserves: Injection volume, overload, and peak distortion Everything below is what sits behind that. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a…
|
+43 | 47 | 36k | 2mo |
|
Coming back to: A community side-effect dataset, with its response rate and biases
On the subject in the title: A community side-effect dataset, with its response rate and biases Working notes rather than a conclusion. Posting the method first, because I know what the first three replies…
|
+27 | 31 | 46k | 9mo |
|
Area percent versus weight percent: the confusion that causes most arguments — what changed since
Area percent versus weight percent: the confusion that causes most arguments — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting the method first,…
|
+30 | 34 | 40k | 13mo |
|
Carryover and the ghost peak from last week's standard — what changed since
Carryover and the ghost peak from last week's standard — what changed since Writing it up because I had to work it out twice and would rather nobody else did. Posting the method first, because I know what the…
|
+98 | 114 | 37k | 22d |
|
Impurity thresholds: where the common numbers come from
Impurity thresholds: where the common numbers come from — setting out what I have, and where I think it stops being reliable. A documentation question rather than an analytical one. I have a certificate in…
|
+11 | 15 | 825 | 2d |