[Lab] CPC orfo — Janoshik came back 98.3% against a claimed 97.5%
CPC orfo — Janoshik came back 98.3% against a claimed 97.5%. That is the headline. The document, the batch and the service are below so you can argue with the method rather than with me.
Pulling the figures out of the title: 98.3% and 97.5%. All of it is written down as it happened rather than reconstructed.
Assumed the peptide purity conversations transferred and they do not. Different analytical problem entirely.
Nothing containing this compound is approved by any regulator, and research-use-only material is not approved for human use.
If somebody has the same thing measured a different way, post it next to mine and we will see whether they agree.
- CPCPC source pageChinese Peptide Company Co., Ltd. · Hangzhou · 93% here, rank 12 · shop at chinesepeptidecompany.net →
nofollow and sponsored; nobody here is paid for it.best — the order this archive was captured in
The analytical point, which this board keeps getting wrong by importing habits from the peptide side.
For a peptide, purity is typically reported as area percent by HPLC with identity by mass spectrometry, and the impurity classes are things like deletion and oxidation products. For a small molecule the relevant impurities are synthetic intermediates, degradants and residual solvents, and identity is established differently.
So the certificate you would want looks different, the questions to ask are different, and a "purity" figure quoted here is not comparable to one quoted on the peptide boards. Anybody posting a result should say what method produced it, which is good practice everywhere and essential here.
It is a non-peptide small-molecule agonist at the GLP-1 receptor. That is a substantial medicinal chemistry achievement: getting a small molecule to activate a receptor evolved for a peptide ligand.
a non-peptide agonist does not degrade the way a peptide does
Disagree. You are comparing doses across a small molecule and a peptide, which is not a comparison of anything.
Corrected a cross-class dose comparison in the title. The body is untouched.
That is a phase 2 result being quoted as though the programme had reported.
Not convinced. Oral semaglutide is a peptide formulated with an absorption enhancer; the comparison you are making does not hold.
oral and non-peptide is the whole engineering story
Milligram comparisons across molecule classes are meaningless. Potency is a property of the molecule at its receptor, not of the number on the label.
Careful — purity methods for peptides do not read across to a small molecule and the numbers are not equivalent.
Daily dosing, so what does the exposure profile look like across the day?
Daily rather than weekly sounds trivial until you think about what a missed dose means in each case.
Went looking for independent testing on this and found essentially nothing, which was clarifying.
Right, and comparing milligrams between a small molecule and a peptide is meaningless in either direction.
- 1Not convinced. Oral semaglutide is a peptide formulated with an absorption…6 comments in this branch · started by u/hsa_math