Bridging the Gap: Optimizing Analytical-to-Preparative Chromatography Transfer for Therapeutic Peptide Purification

Optimal purification, high purity, and robust purity control for synthetic peptides are crucial, because even minor impurities can alter biological activity, distort analytical results and affect downstream applications negatively. The reliable translation of analytical high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) results to preparative fast protein liquid chromatography (FPLC) conditions remains a challenge due to system-specific differences in column geometry, gradient formation, and mobile-phase chemistry. A joint study between ETH Zurich’s Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences (Switzerland) and Zeochem Silica Materials (Quebec, Canada) addressed these limitations by systematically evaluating the chromatographic parameters influencing peptide selectivity, resolution, and transferability. A paper based on their evaluation efforts was published in the Journal of Peptide Science.¹

Synthetic peptides have been recognized as an significant class of therapeutic agents due to their ability to modulate biological processes with high potency and specificity, especially through their ability to target protein–protein interactions which are frequently inaccessible to conventional small molecules.^2,3Over the past decade, several peptide-based drugs have reached clinical approval, including the GLP-1 analogues Semaglutide (Ozempic, Wegovy) and Tirzepatide (Mounjaro),^4,5 Bremelanotide (Vyleesi) for hypoactive sexual desire disorder,⁶ and Setmelanotide (Imcivree) for obesity-related genetic disorders.⁷ In addition, many others are in advanced clinical trials.^8-10 

In their paper,¹ the authors argue that evaluating chromatographic parameters is essential because synthetic peptides accumulate closely related impurities during Fmoc solid-phase peptide synthesis that are notoriously difficult to separate due to their subtle mass and physicochemical differences, with many sharing identical masses that render mass spectrometry insufficient without adequate chromatographic resolution. Current peptide analysis methods vary widely between laboratories, hampering reliable purity determination and direct comparison of results, while growing environmental concerns about trifluoroacetic acid necessitate evaluation of greener alternatives like formic and acetic acids whose impact on selectivity and resolution remains poorly understood. Most critically, significant challenges exist in transferring methods from analytical HPLC to preparative reversed-phase (RP)-flash liquid chromatography systems due to differences in column geometry, particle size, and system parameters that alter retention behavior, often causing elution predictions to fail and requiring additional optimization that increases solvent consumption, process time, and material loss, making improved understanding of parameter transferability essential for reliable scale translation in peptide production workflows.

The researchers report that, by using a defined peptide impurity library, they were able to quantify the effects of gradient steepness, flow rate, temperature and mobile-phase modifier, which showed that flow-rate optimization and modifier choice have the greatest impact on separation quality. Furthermore, a correction equation was developed to compensate for system-dependent deviations, this reduced transfer errors in elution percentage from approximately 17% to less than 5%. The optimized workflow enabled initial preparative purifications with purities above 90% and yields exceeding 30%. Additionally, substitution of trifluoroacetic acid with formic acid was explored as a greener modifier, providing selective improvements in separation performance.¹

This approach, according to the authors of the article,¹ “establishes a practical and sustainable workflow for the transfer of HPLC-to-FPLC methods for peptide purification.”

References

1. Streuli, A.; Erckes, V.; Nardone, B. et al. Improvement of Analysis and Transferability in Peptide Purification: From HPLC to FPLC and Back Again. J Pept Sci. 2026, 32 (3), e70090. DOI: 10.1002/psc.70090
2. Fosgerau, K.; Hoffmann, T. Peptide Therapeutics: Current Status and Future Directions. Drug Discov Today 2015, 20 (1), 122-8. DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2014.10.003
3. Lau, J. L.; Dunn, M. K. Therapeutic Peptides: Historical Perspectives, Current Development Trends, and Future Directions. Bioorg Med Chem. 2018, 26 (10), 2700-2707. DOI: 10.1016/j.bmc.2017.06.052
4. Dhillon, S. Semaglutide: First Global Approval. Drugs 2018, 78 (2), 275-284. DOI: 10.1007/s40265-018-0871-0
5. Syed, Y. Y. Tirzepatide: First Approval. Drugs 2022, 82 (11),1213-1220. DOI: 10.1007/s40265-022-01746-8
6. Dhillon, S; Keam, S. J. Bremelanotide: First Approval. Drugs 2019, 79 (14), 1599-1606. DOI: 10.1007/s40265-019-01187-w
7. Markham, A. Setmelanotide: First Approval. Drugs 2021, 81 (3), 397-403. DOI: 10.1007/s40265-021-01470-9
8. D'Aloisio, V.; Dognini, P.; Hutcheon, G. A. et al. PepTherDia: Database and Structural Composition Analysis of Approved Peptide Therapeutics and Diagnostics. Drug Discov Today 2021, 26 (6), 1409-1419. DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2021.02.019
9. Craik, D. J.; Fairlie, D. P.; Liras, S. et al. The Future of Peptide-Based Drugs. Chem Biol Drug Des. 2013, 81 (1), 136-147. DOI: 10.1111/cbdd.12055
10. Palomo, J. M. Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis: An Overview Focused on the Preparation of Biologically Relevant peptides. RSC Adv. 2014, 4, 32658-32672. DOI: 10.1039/C4RA02458C