Key comparison study on peptide purity—synthetic human C-peptide
Authors: Josephs R D , Li M , Song D , Westwood S , Stoppacher N , Daireaux A , Choteau T , Wielgosz R , Xiao P , Liu Y , Gao X , Zhang C , Zhang T , Mi W , Quan C , Huang T , Li H , Flatschart R , Oliveira R Borges , Melanson J E , Ohlendorf R , Henrion A , Kinumi T , Wong L , Liu Q , Senal M Oztug , Vatansever B , Ün I , Gören A C , Akgöz M , Quaglia M , Warren J 
Published: February 2017

Under the auspices of the Protein Analysis Working Group (PAWG) of the Comité Consultatif pour la Quantité de Matière (CCQM) a key comparison, CCQM-K115, was coordinated by the Bureau International des Poids et Mesures (BIPM) and the Chinese National Institute of Metrology (NIM). Eight Metrology Institutes or Designated Institutes and the BIPM participated. Participants were required to assign the mass fraction of human C-peptide (hCP) present as the main component in the comparison sample for CCQM-K115. The comparison samples were prepared from synthetic human hCP purchased from a commercial supplier and used as provided without further treatment or purification.

hCP was selected to be representative of the performance of a laboratory's measurement capability for the purity assignment of short (up to 5 kDa), non-cross-linked synthetic peptides/proteins. It was anticipated to provide an analytical measurement challenge representative for the value-assignment of compounds of broadly similar structural characteristics.

The majority of participants used a peptide impurity corrected amino acid analysis (PICAA) approach as the amount of material that has been provided to each participant (25 mg) is insufficient to perform a full mass balance based characterization of the material by a participating laboratory. The coordinators, both the BIPM and the NIM, were the laboratories to use the mass balance approach as they had more material available.

It was decided to propose KCRVs for both the hCP mass fraction and the mass fraction of the peptide related impurities as indispensable contributor regardless of the use of PICAA, mass balance or any other approach to determine the hCP purity. This allowed participants to demonstrate the efficacy of their implementation of the approaches used to determine the hCP mass fraction. In particular it allows participants to demonstrate the efficacy of their implementation of peptide related impurity identification and quantification. More detailed studies on the identification/quantification of peptide related impurities and the hydrolysis efficiency revealed that the integrity of the impurity profile of the related peptide impurities obtained by the participant is crucial for the impact on accuracy of the hCP mass fraction assignment.

The assessment of the mass fraction of peptide impurities is based on the assumption that only the most exhaustive and elaborate set of results is taken for the calculation of the KCRVPepImp. The KCRVPepImp for the peptide related impurity mass fractions of the material was 83.3 mg/g with a combined standard uncertainty of 1.5 mg/g. Inspection of the degree of equivalence plots for the mass fraction of peptide impurities and additional information obtained from the peptide related impurity profile indicates that in many cases only a very small number of impurities have been identified and quantified resulting in an underestimation of the peptide related impurity mass fractions.

The approach to obtain a KCRVhCP for the mass fraction of hCP is based on a mass balance calculation that takes into account the most exhaustive and elaborate set of results for the peptide related impurities KCRVPepImp, the TFA mass fraction value, water and other minor counter ions obtained by the coordinating laboratories. Differences in the quality of the results obtained for both peptides related impurity mass fractions and hCP mass fractions are better weighted and reflected in smaller uncertainties. The KCRVhCP for CCQM-K115 is 801.8 mg/g with a corresponding combined standard uncertainty of 3.1 mg/g.

In general, mass balance approaches show smaller uncertainties than PICAA approaches and the majority of results obtained by the PICAA approach are in agreement because of larger corresponding uncertainties.

Main text

To reach the main text of this paper, click on Final Report. Note that this text is that which appears in Appendix B of the BIPM key comparison database kcdb.bipm.org/.

The final report has been peer-reviewed and approved for publication by the CCQM, according to the provisions of the CIPM Mutual Recognition Arrangement (CIPM MRA).