Quick PSA for anyone using Verfiied Peptides (VP).
I initially chose VP as what looked to be a suitable replacement for the now-defunct Peptide Sciences. They are one of the few RUO/UGL suppliers that publish COAs which include the much-needed endotoxin (LAL) testing in addition to HPLC potency/purity analysis.
I’ve therefore been running independent endotoxin (LAL) testing on vials after a prior LPS incident.
VP Result (Independent Test)
What VP Shows
Communication
Takeaway
That’s a ~35x difference vs the typical ≤0.05 EU/mL spec—and no engagement from VP to explain it.
For injectables, that’s a hard stop for me.
More testing pending on other VP vials as well as on other suppliers (I also use Finnrick). Will update.
I initially chose VP as what looked to be a suitable replacement for the now-defunct Peptide Sciences. They are one of the few RUO/UGL suppliers that publish COAs which include the much-needed endotoxin (LAL) testing in addition to HPLC potency/purity analysis.
I’ve therefore been running independent endotoxin (LAL) testing on vials after a prior LPS incident.
VP Result (Independent Test)
- • Method: Kinetic turbidimetric LAL (MZ BioLabs)
- • Avg: 1.777 EU/mL
- • Total: 3.554 EU → POSITIVE
What VP Shows
- • COAs (where available): typically ≤0.05 EU/mL (PASS)
- • No updated COAs reflecting this discrepancy
Communication
- • Multiple emails sent
- • Follow-ups sent
- • Zero response
TakeawayThat’s a ~35x difference vs the typical ≤0.05 EU/mL spec—and no engagement from VP to explain it.
For injectables, that’s a hard stop for me.
More testing pending on other VP vials as well as on other suppliers (I also use Finnrick). Will update.
