Start Here

Peer-reviewed laboratory literature on research-use-only labeling, certificates of analysis, and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) purity and identity tests is summarised below. The note is library-wide and is not a protocol for a named compound. In a review of United States Food and Drug Administration regulation of in vitro diagnostic devices, research-use-only devices were described as intended for basic scientific or animal research in the search for a diagnostic hypothesis, were stated not to be considered effective in vitro diagnostics, and were described as labeled “For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.”[1] The same review stated that research-use-only devices require no premarket regulation except for that labeling requirement, are not subject to good manufacturing practices or other general controls, are not intended as building blocks for laboratory-developed assays, and are not intended to be used to report results to patients or health care professionals for clinical purposes.[1] In a description of a centralized biomarker assay laboratory serving Alzheimer disease research, research-use-only fluid biomarkers were stated to be for research and not for medical decision making.[2] In a special report on European in vitro diagnostic regulation, withdrawal of Conformité Européene–marked in vitro diagnostic products was described as often followed by replacement with research-use-only products, shifting responsibility for analytical validity onto laboratories that then place those products inside in-house diagnostic workflows.[3] In an in vitro quality-control study of synthetic quorum-sensing peptides supplied for research and development with a requested purity of at least 95.0 percent, the authors reported a large discrepancy between purity stated on the supplier certificate of analysis and independent laboratory measurements; only 44.0 percent of the sampled peptides met the requested purity, and in one sample the main compound did not match the intended structure.[4] A review of pharmacopoeial quality specifications for peptide drugs grouped monograph tests into identification, purity, and assay, and reported that those specifications are not fully harmonized between the European Pharmacopoeia and the United States Pharmacopeia.[5] In a report on synthetic peptide reference standards, identity testing was described as using nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy, mass spectrometry, and chromatography, while HPLC and gas chromatography were described as methods for assessing peptide content and impurities; chiral or isobaric amino acids were noted as features that may require additional techniques for full characterization.[6] In an in vitro reversed-phase liquid chromatography quality-control study of cationic cell-penetrating peptides, HPLC with ultraviolet detection was used to estimate purity, and a mass-spectrometry detector was used to identify the peptide and its impurities and to evaluate chromatographic peak purity.[7] A review of related impurities in peptide medicines manufactured by solid-phase peptide synthesis listed deletion and insertion sequences, diastereomeric impurities from racemization, incomplete side-chain deprotection adducts, oxidation products, and oligomeric species as impurity classes that can accompany the target sequence.[8]