Peptide stability table (revision 61)
Old revision·06:08, 21 Feb 2026·Ref_Desk_Ron
| Peptide stability tableInteractive reference tool | |
|---|---|
Temperature exposure accumulates along the chain; a stability figure describes one segment of it. | |
| Rows | 28 compounds |
| Columns | Lyophilised and reconstituted storage, diluent, notes |
| Caveats | |
| Comparability | Low — conditions and assays differ by source |
| Basis | Manufacturer labelling where available, otherwise published stability studies |
| Not covered | Sterility, endotoxin, container-closure integrity |
| Reference tool infobox · conventions | |
The peptide stability table collects reported storage conditions and stability intervals for compounds covered on this wiki. It is a navigational and comparative aid rather than a source in its own right: every figure in it is attributable to labelling or to a published study, and the two are not equivalent evidence.
Stability is a property of a formulation in a container under conditions, not of a molecule. The same peptide may carry a 36-month shelf life as a manufactured product and no meaningful stability claim at all as a lyophilised research powder in an unspecified vial, because nobody has run the study.[1] Where the table records a figure for a research compound, that figure is almost always extrapolated from a related product or from a small published study, and the notes column says so.
The table
[edit]Filter by compound name, or by storage class. Sorting is available on every column.
How to read the columns
[edit]- Lyophilised
- Conditions and interval reported for the dry solid in its sealed container. A lyophilised peptide is far more stable than the same peptide in solution, because the degradation pathways that matter — deamidation, oxidation and aggregation — all require water or mobility.[2]
- Reconstituted
- Conditions and interval after dissolution. This is the column with the weakest sourcing across the table, and the one carrying the maintenance banner: for approved products it comes from labelling, and for research compounds it is usually an extrapolation.
- Diluent
- What the figure applies to. Bacteriostatic water and unpreserved water are not interchangeable for the purpose of a storage interval, because the interval for a multi-puncture container depends on the preservative.
- Light
- Whether photodegradation is reported as significant. Tryptophan- and tyrosine-containing sequences are the usual concern.
- Basis
- Whether the row rests on manufacturer labelling, a published stability study, or an extrapolation. Rows marked extrapolated should not be cited as evidence about the compound named.
Why cross-source comparison is unsafe
[edit]Four differences between sources make two stability figures incomparable even when both are honestly reported.
The specification differs. "Stable for 28 days" means "remained within the specification" and specifications differ. A limit of 95% of label potency and a limit of 90% produce different intervals from identical data.
The assay differs. A stability-indicating HPLC method that resolves the principal degradant reports loss that a method which co-elutes it does not. Method validation is what establishes that a method is stability-indicating, and research-compound figures rarely state whether it was.[1]
The container differs. Adsorption to glass, extractables from a stopper, and headspace oxygen all affect degradation rate. A figure obtained in a Type I glass vial with a coated stopper does not transfer to an uncoated one.
The temperature history differs. A nominal 2–8 °C figure assumes 2–8 °C throughout. Real distribution includes excursions, and the mean kinetic temperature of a shipment can exceed its nominal condition substantially.[1]
What this table does not tell you
[edit]It does not tell a reader whether a specific vial is sound. Stability data describes a formulation under conditions; it says nothing about a particular container that has been through an unknown distribution history. Nor does it address:
- sterility, which is a property of the process and container-closure integrity, tested under USP <71> rather than by a stability study;[3] storage and packaging requirements are set out separately again;[4]
- endotoxin, which does not decrease on storage and is tested under USP <85>;
- identity, which is what mass spectrometry establishes and no stability figure implies;
- the label claim, which is a mass-balance question.
A compound that is stable, sterile and endotoxin-free may still be the wrong compound.
See also
References
- ^ a b c International Council for Harmonisation, Q1A(R2): Stability Testing of New Drug Substances and Products (2003).
- ^ Manning MC, Chou DK, Murphy BM, Payne RW, Katayama DS. "Stability of protein pharmaceuticals: an update." Pharmaceutical Research 27(4):544–575 (2010). DOI:10.1007/s11095-009-0045-6. PMID 20143256.
- ^ United States Pharmacopeia, General Chapter <71>, "Sterility Tests". USP–NF, current revision.
- ^ United States Pharmacopeia, General Chapter <659>, "Packaging and Storage Requirements". USP–NF, current revision.
Further reading
- Wang W. "Lyophilization and development of solid protein pharmaceuticals." International Journal of Pharmaceutics 203(1–2):1–60 (2000).