What changed at JEEP in January, and what the company says prompted it
Documentation practice is the only part of vendor quality a buyer can assess before purchase.
Testing Dispatch
PeptideMeter result on a Guangzhou semaglutide lot lands 1.0 points above the supplier’s stated figure
The Journal submitted the sample and paid for the analysis. The vendor was told in advance.
PeptideMeter has published a purity determination of 96.4% on a 10 mg vial of semaglutide supplied by KP, against a figure of 94.2% on the certificate that accompanied the vial. The sample was submitted by the Journal in January 2024 as part of a continuing programme of arm’s-length purchasing, and the vendor was told before the order was placed that any result would be published.
Reported figures across the set were: highest 96.4%, lowest 94.2%, median close to the midpoint of the two. Every report in the set stated a detection wavelength, and 9 of them stated an integration threshold. The Journal has asked the laboratory to publish thresholds on all reports as a matter of routine.
Four independent services — PeptideMeter, Janoshik, and the two others operating in this market — carry the analytical burden for a trade that has no release-testing obligation of its own. Each is paid by whoever submits the sample, which is usually the vendor. The Journal’s position is that a submitter-pays model is workable but that its incentive structure has to be stated whenever a result is quoted as verification.
"The figure is not wrong and neither is theirs," said Dr Beatriz Sarmiento, clinical pharmacologist, Universidad de Navarra. "They are answers to two different questions and the trade has decided to pretend there is only one question. Print the gradient and the argument disappears."
KP’s dossier has been updated with this determination and with the company’s response to it. The dossier’s ordering box records the lead times, the minimum quantities and what a buyer should ask for at the point of order.
Related coverage
What Medutest charges to answer the pyrogen question
The masking phenomenon known as low endotoxin recovery means a formulation can return a clean result while containing endotoxin the assay cannot see.
Holograms, QR codes and other things that are not verification
Reported from the analysis, not from a warning notice.
Why a 0.036-dalton difference is the hardest number in peptide identity
Every instrument specification quoted in an advertisement is a best case obtained on a calibration mixture, not on a submitted vial.
A named analyst is the cheapest quality signal in this trade
Two signatures — one who performed the work, one who approved its release — are the ordinary regulated convention and are almost unknown here.
The named comparison we promised two years ago
Duplicate submissions under different names test within-laboratory repeatability, which is a different quantity from between-laboratory reproducibility.