The question no chromatogram has ever answered

A certificate of analysis for a research peptide is, in the overwhelming majority of cases, a document about chemistry. It reports a chromatographic purity figure, sometimes a mass, occasionally a water content, and it is generated from a few milligrams of powder dissolved in a vial of mobile phase. Nothing in that procedure has any bearing on whether the sealed container it came from holds viable microorganisms, whether the powder carries pyrogenic material from an upstream water system, or whether the stopper has maintained a seal since the day it was crimped. The document is accurate and it is answering a different question.

Two questions that share a piece of paper

Consider what happens physically when a certificate is produced. A few milligrams of lyophilised powder are weighed, dissolved in an aqueous mobile phase with an organic modifier, injected onto a reversed-phase column and separated over a programmed gradient while an ultraviolet detector records absorbance. The output is a trace. Software integrates the areas beneath its features, and the main peak area as a proportion of the total becomes the purity figure.

Every step of that procedure is blind to microbial contamination. A bacterial cell contributes no ultraviolet-absorbing peak at any retention time a peptide method would record. Endotoxin, a lipopolysaccharide, is not usefully detected at the wavelengths used for peptide bond absorbance and would in any case be present at a mass fraction several orders of magnitude below any integration threshold in commercial use. A vial holding a hundred colony-forming units and a vial holding none produce chromatograms that no analyst could distinguish.

This is not a defect of the method. Reversed-phase chromatography is an excellent way of determining what proportion of the chromatographically visible material is the intended species, and that is what it is being asked. The defect is in the reading. A document answering one question is being filed as evidence about five.

The four services, and what they will sell you

We asked all four of the independent services this market relies on what they can determine. Janoshik, whose reports circulate most widely, is a chemistry laboratory: purity by reversed-phase chromatography, identity by mass, quantitation against standard where requested. Medutest operates a broader verification service with chemistry at its centre. PeptideMeter is likewise a chemistry and verification operation. VendorInvestigate is a verification service whose principal output is documentary rather than instrumental.

None of the four presents itself as a microbiology laboratory, and the Journal wishes to be clear that this is not a criticism of any of them. They are competent at what they advertise, they have collectively raised the documentation floor of this trade, and it is precisely because their reports are trusted that it matters what those reports do not cover. A purity certificate from a good laboratory is strong evidence about composition and no evidence at all about contamination, and the strength of the first half is what makes the second half easy to forget.

Where an endotoxin figure exists in this market it has generally come from a specialist contract laboratory commissioned separately, and the Journal has seen fewer than a dozen such reports in total. Two of them accompanied vials we submitted ourselves.

Documentation practice, named and criticised

The Journal tracks the release documentation of twenty companies. On sterility and endotoxin the picture is close to uniform. Every one publishes a purity figure. A minority publish an identity confirmation. Two publish peptide content. On the microbiological attributes, the standard document is silent, and the silence is not annotated: there is no line reading that sterility has not been determined, which would at least be informative.

Some of the practices we would like to see are already in use somewhere in the group. SSA reports peptide content on its certificates, having begun after correspondence with this publication. CPC and SWB describe their fill environment in general terms on request. QST and BCH answered our five questions in full. WXT and FGP declined on the grounds that research-use products are not represented as sterile injectables, which is a legally sound answer that concedes the point of the exercise. Several others did not respond, and we record non-response as non-response rather than as evasion.

What we are criticising is a documentary convention, not the conduct of any company named here. None of the twenty has been shown to us to have misrepresented anything. The convention is that a chemistry certificate stands in for a release package, and it is a convention this trade adopted collectively and could abandon the same way.

What this article is not asserting

Precision about the scope of a criticism is part of the job, so it is worth spending a paragraph on what is not being said. This piece does not allege that any company named in it has sold contaminated material. It does not allege that any of them has concealed a result, falsified a document or misrepresented a test. It does not claim that the products discussed are dangerous, and it does not claim that they are safe, because neither claim is supportable from the evidence we have.

What the piece asserts is documentary. A certificate describing chemistry is being read as a release package covering microbiology. That mismatch is created by the format of the document rather than by anybody’s intent, and it is closed by adding lines rather than by changing behaviour.

There is also a legal point the Journal has no wish to elide. Research-use-only material is not approved for human use in any jurisdiction, is not required to meet parenteral standards, and is not represented by its sellers as meeting them. Everything in this article about endotoxin limits and sterility assurance describes the framework that would apply to a parenteral medicine. Applying that framework to a research chemical is a comparison, not a compliance requirement, and readers should hold both halves of that sentence at once.

A note on method and sourcing

The compendial material in this article is drawn from the current general chapters of the United States Pharmacopeia and the European Pharmacopoeia, read in the original rather than in summary, and from the international standards on aseptic processing and on laboratory competence. Where a chapter has changed status recently — as the recombinant reagent chapters have — we say so, because a reader consulting an older edition will find a different framing.

Where the Journal reports a number it obtained itself, it states the laboratory’s accreditation status, the method family, whether method suitability was established, and the number of determinations. Where we report what a company told us, we distinguish an answer from a refusal and a refusal from a non-response, because those three things are routinely collapsed in coverage of this trade and they are not the same.

Corrections to this department are handled by the standards desk, which reads every letter and records the outcome in the log. Readers who believe a paragraph here overstates its evidence are asked to write to standards@compoundjournal.com; readers with documents to send, including certificates they would like read, should write to letters@compoundjournal.com. We do not publish correspondents’ names without permission and we do not identify the source of a certificate.

We will keep asking the five questions, printing the answers, and recording the refusals as refusals. Two companies changed their certificates after the first round of this correspondence, which is a small result for a year of letters and rather better than none. Documents to letters@compoundjournal.com; disputes about anything above to standards@compoundjournal.com.