Eloralintide
-
@mikebricker I've been looking at it, but I won't touch it unless it's been tested for the ring structure, which cannot be done with a standard LCMS or Chromatogram.
I can't find any reasonably priced kits, which have been tested properly. It is so much like Cagri, that it's worth buying Cagri first and going slow. See how you react to a peptide that affects the Amylin receptors.
@MikeMiranda Mike just a heads up. We gotta keep the banners and stuff for GB's in the grey zone as its login gated. That being said please go reshare that in there. QWB is rebranding to a new name right now (as Yuan Tai) so id be careful. Lots of people trying to dox them at the moment because of some massive f ups.
Also heres something for the elora fans.
https://community.peptidecritic.com/topic/3323/chengdu-biotech
-
@mikebricker I've been looking at it, but I won't touch it unless it's been tested for the ring structure, which cannot be done with a standard LCMS or Chromatogram.
I can't find any reasonably priced kits, which have been tested properly. It is so much like Cagri, that it's worth buying Cagri first and going slow. See how you react to a peptide that affects the Amylin receptors.
@Bullseye That specific testing isn’t really required.
Is this exotic “bridge” testing really necessary for Eloralintide? It doesn’t seems so.
Mass spectrometry measures the exact mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of the molecule. Because Eloralintide is a highly complex, custom-engineered amylin analog containing a specific C20 fatty diacid moiety and modified amino acids (like ornithine and α-methylphenylalanine), its theoretical intact mass of 4,526.10 Da is unique. If the peptide chain were misfolded, missing components, or had an unformed bridge, its exact monoisotopic molecular weight would change, and it would not match the (M+2H)squared value of 2,263.30.
Therefore, if a batch achieves an intact mass match down to decimal-point accuracy alongside a clean, single-peak HPLC chromatogram, the chemical identity and physical structure are already implicitly verified. Dedicated secondary structural "bridge testing" would be redundant for a standard identity check.
-
@Bullseye That specific testing isn’t really required.
Is this exotic “bridge” testing really necessary for Eloralintide? It doesn’t seems so.
Mass spectrometry measures the exact mass-to-charge ratio (m/z) of the molecule. Because Eloralintide is a highly complex, custom-engineered amylin analog containing a specific C20 fatty diacid moiety and modified amino acids (like ornithine and α-methylphenylalanine), its theoretical intact mass of 4,526.10 Da is unique. If the peptide chain were misfolded, missing components, or had an unformed bridge, its exact monoisotopic molecular weight would change, and it would not match the (M+2H)squared value of 2,263.30.
Therefore, if a batch achieves an intact mass match down to decimal-point accuracy alongside a clean, single-peak HPLC chromatogram, the chemical identity and physical structure are already implicitly verified. Dedicated secondary structural "bridge testing" would be redundant for a standard identity check.
-
@mikebricker in laymen non AI terms what @randy said if the lab has its act together it can test for it.
@Stevepep What is “it”? Test for ID of Elora or test for this exotic bridge? A lab with the Elora standards and MS capability doesn’t need to test for the bridge….
-
@Stevepep What is “it”? Test for ID of Elora or test for this exotic bridge? A lab with the Elora standards and MS capability doesn’t need to test for the bridge….
@mikebricker from what I understand the standards are always the key otherwise you filter out anything close to the return on the peptide. The issue is they are expensive so most labs are just punching it in and spitting out a result. According to Janoshik they have a million dollars in reference standards and Vanguard claims to have spent 150k in the last 6 months. Its easy to throw a vial in and get a result then it comes down to what is that result based on.
-
@mikebricker from what I understand the standards are always the key otherwise you filter out anything close to the return on the peptide. The issue is they are expensive so most labs are just punching it in and spitting out a result. According to Janoshik they have a million dollars in reference standards and Vanguard claims to have spent 150k in the last 6 months. Its easy to throw a vial in and get a result then it comes down to what is that result based on.
@Stevepep I hear you. However, I asked Krause that same question and they wouldn’t do that. They are ordering the standards so they can test Eloralintide and Cartalax. Even though they could just “punch in” the mass and call it good. My point is this voodoo about some exotic bridge is just BS. If they have the standards the MS confirms the peptide….
-
@Stevepep I hear you. However, I asked Krause that same question and they wouldn’t do that. They are ordering the standards so they can test Eloralintide and Cartalax. Even though they could just “punch in” the mass and call it good. My point is this voodoo about some exotic bridge is just BS. If they have the standards the MS confirms the peptide….
@mikebricker Completely disagree. That ring is everything. It can test for Elo, but the molecule might not be synthesized properly. Talk to any qualified chemist.
-
@mikebricker Completely disagree. That ring is everything. It can test for Elo, but the molecule might not be synthesized properly. Talk to any qualified chemist.
-
Yes, but is additional testing necessary? Look at the exorbitant prices to do this unnecessary special testing. And three separate labs verified Elora without it. Janoshik (twice), Vanguard and Freedom.
While running LC-MS/MS sequence fragmentation provides absolute structural proof of the cyclic loop, the pairing of an exact intact mass match and a clean, singular HPLC peak serves as a reliable surrogate marker. For routine verification of research supplies, the basic LC-MS/HPLC profile is considered completely adequate.
7bc3a87c-2811-48e1-9b7c-002fde1060d1-COA Vanguard Elora.pdf
54b928a7-764a-47f8-820a-2262d9b3a465-COA Freedom Elora. .pdf
-
Yes, but is additional testing necessary? Look at the exorbitant prices to do this unnecessary special testing. And three separate labs verified Elora without it. Janoshik (twice), Vanguard and Freedom.
While running LC-MS/MS sequence fragmentation provides absolute structural proof of the cyclic loop, the pairing of an exact intact mass match and a clean, singular HPLC peak serves as a reliable surrogate marker. For routine verification of research supplies, the basic LC-MS/HPLC profile is considered completely adequate.7bc3a87c-2811-48e1-9b7c-002fde1060d1-COA Vanguard Elora.pdf
54b928a7-764a-47f8-820a-2262d9b3a465-COA Freedom Elora. .pdf
"For routine verification of research supplies"
Yes, if, for example, you are the manufacturer, and you run the line of Eloralintide, and you set it up already, used MS/MS or NMR initially to verify the output is a proper Eloralintide, then for "routine verification" is it enough to just run basic LC-MS/HPLC from time to time to make sure nothing changes. It's very unlikely that the product all of the sudden becomes something else, but this test result remains the same.
But if you buy an unknown compound from a market, you have no idea what it is, and basic tests become not sufficient.
-
Even Nexaph runs it, because it is a critical part of the molecule.
Look at the tests https://testing.nexaph.com/ELORA1009132026-01
It's interesting to look at the actual test, scroll down the test for the visual representation, and see how it is identified.
https://verify.janoshik.com/tests/235512-Eloralintide_10mg_Transparent_Purple_Silver_K5Z37119GH7P -
"For routine verification of research supplies"
Yes, if, for example, you are the manufacturer, and you run the line of Eloralintide, and you set it up already, used MS/MS or NMR initially to verify the output is a proper Eloralintide, then for "routine verification" is it enough to just run basic LC-MS/HPLC from time to time to make sure nothing changes. It's very unlikely that the product all of the sudden becomes something else, but this test result remains the same.
But if you buy an unknown compound from a market, you have no idea what it is, and basic tests become not sufficient.
@vpeps Really? So explain why Freedom, Vanguard and a Janoshik all evaluated Eloralintide for users on here without the special testing? Hmmm…. Inquiring minds want to know your reasoning. Oh, and Jano only did it for Nexaph because it was specifically requested. They did two other analyses confirming Elora without the bridge testing.
I’m thinking we’re going to have to agree to disagree? -
@vpeps Really? So explain why Freedom, Vanguard and a Janoshik all evaluated Eloralintide for users on here without the special testing? Hmmm…. Inquiring minds want to know your reasoning. Oh, and Jano only did it for Nexaph because it was specifically requested. They did two other analyses confirming Elora without the bridge testing.
I’m thinking we’re going to have to agree to disagree?@mikebricker I guess they just did what they were paid for. If a customer requests a simple MS or a simple HPLC for identity, what should you as a lab produce? You measure m/z or the retention time, compare to the reference and say it matches or not. Is it a "required" for identity test? - yes. It is a "sufficient" - no. Any test result is a statistical measure, a probability, with some error margin, false positives, false negatives, etc. You want to be more certain? Do more tests. It is never 100% guarantee, but at some point it becomes "highly likely".
-
Janoshik said that, of approximately 30 eloralintide bridge NMR orders, only one customer had understood the purpose of the analysis. He also expressed the view that regular HPLC testing was sufficient, saying bridge defects would affect retention or molar mass, while referring to some unlikely exceptions.
https://krysia0430.substack.com/p/paying-for-peptide-testing-is-a-yes -
Janoshik said that, of approximately 30 eloralintide bridge NMR orders, only one customer had understood the purpose of the analysis. He also expressed the view that regular HPLC testing was sufficient, saying bridge defects would affect retention or molar mass, while referring to some unlikely exceptions.
https://krysia0430.substack.com/p/paying-for-peptide-testing-is-a-yes@mmp Exactly. Thank you.
-
@duckamerica Yeah, that head Janoshik guy don’t know crap either….
-
@Stevepep I hear you. However, I asked Krause that same question and they wouldn’t do that. They are ordering the standards so they can test Eloralintide and Cartalax. Even though they could just “punch in” the mass and call it good. My point is this voodoo about some exotic bridge is just BS. If they have the standards the MS confirms the peptide….
-
@duckamerica Yeah, that head Janoshik guy don’t know crap either….
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login