| Title |
Identification of N-Terminally Truncated Derivatives of Insulin Analogs Formed in Pharmaceutical Formulations
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Pharmaceutical Research, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11095-018-2426-1 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Joanna Zielińska, Jacek Stadnik, Anna Bierczyńska-Krzysik, Dorota Stadnik |
| Abstract |
Isolation and identification of unknown impurities of recombinant insulin lispro (produced at IBA) formed during accelerated stability testing of pharmaceutical solutions. For comparative purposes also commercially available formulations of recombinant human insulin (Humulin S®; Lilly), recombinant insulin lispro (Humalog®; Lilly), recombinant insulin aspart (NovoRapid® Penfill®; Novo Nordisk), recombinant insulin detemir (Levemir®; Novo Nordisk) and recombinant insulin glargine (Lantus®; Sanofi-Aventis) were analyzed. The impurities of insulin analogs were isolated by RP-HPLC and identified with peptide mass fingerprinting using MALDI-TOF/TOF mass spectrometry. The identified derivatives were N-terminally truncated insulin analog impurities of decreased molecular mass of 119, 147 and 377 Da related to the original protein. The modifications resulting in a mass decrease were detected at the N-terminus of B chains of insulin lispro, insulin aspart, human insulin, insulin glargine, insulin detemir in all tested formulations. To our knowledge it is the first time that these impurities are reported. The following derivatives formed by truncation of the B chain in insulin analogs were identified in pharmaceutical formulations: desPheB1-N-formyl-ValB2 derivative, desPheB1 derivative, pyroGluB4 derivative. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 20 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 20 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 25% |
| Researcher | 5 | 25% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 10% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 7 | 35% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Chemical Engineering | 1 | 5% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 5% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 3 | 15% |
| Unknown | 6 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 May 2018.
All research outputs
#15,513,418
of 23,055,429 outputs
Outputs from Pharmaceutical Research
#2,246
of 2,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,604
of 327,737 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Pharmaceutical Research
#16
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,055,429 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,871 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.0. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,737 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.