A Comparative Examination of two Fmoc Removal Reagents for Process Improvement to Produce Peptide Drugs

  • K. Srivastava
  • Davis M.
Part of the Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology book series (volume 611)


The importance of peptides as therapeutics has been recognized since they were found responsible for a wide variety of biological functions. The recent approval of peptide drugs such as Byetta® (Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), Fuzeon® (Hoffman-LaRoche Inc.), Integrelin™ (CDR Therapeutics, Inc.), Natrecor® (SCIOS Inc.), Symlin® (Amylin), Teriparatide, and Ziconotide, etc., which demonstrated applications for treatment of such problems as bone metabolism disorders, cardiovascular diseases, diabetes, viral infections and severe chronic pain control, has further endorsed the growing interest in peptides as a potential drug. This growing trend for peptide drugs has drawn our attention for their production in a cost-effective manner. To do so, the improvement in the quality of crude peptides during synthesis, the most critical parameter in the process, is important to prevent yield losses during the more expensive purification step. To accomplish it, we decided to examine the efficacy of the commonly used nucleophilic base piperidine and non-neucleophilic base DBU (1,8-Diazabicyclo[5.4.0]undec-7-ene) for the complete removal of Fmoc group during the synthesis of peptides. According to our investigation, application of piperidine was found more effective than DBU in solid phase synthesis. Details of the investigation will be discussed.


Solid Phase Synthesis Peptide Drug Crude Peptide Fmoc Group Wang Resin 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    M. Ayoub, et al, Chimica Oggi, Chemistry Today, 24 (4), 46–48, 2006.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. B. Merrifield, Science, 232, 341–347, 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. Barany, et al, IJPPR, 30, 705–739, 1987.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    S. Sakakibara, Biopolymers (Peptide Science), 37, 17–28, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    G.B. Fields, et al, IJPPR, 35, 161–214, 1990.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    V. J. Hruby, et al, J. Peptide Res., 56 (2), 70–79, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    M. Fridkin, et al, J. Peptide Sci., 11 (1), 45–52, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    F. Albericio, et al, J. Peptide Res., 56 (2), 63–69, 2000.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. D. Wade, et al, Peptide Res., 4, 194–199, 1991.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. A. Kates, et al, Peptide Res., 9, 106–113, 1996.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    I. Szabo, et al, Biopolymers (Peptide Science), 88 (1), 20–28, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. B. Bloomberg, et al, Tetrahedron Lett., 34, 4709, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    D. Hudson, JOC, 53, 617–624, 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    E. Kaiser, et al, Anal. Biochem., 34, 595–598, 1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. A. Carpino, et al, JOC, 55, 1673–1675, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • K. Srivastava
    • 1
  • Davis M.
    • 1
  1. 1.Pharmaceuticals Division, Tyco Healthcare / Mallinckrodt Inc.Peptide Research and DevelopmentSt. Louis, MOUSA

Personalised recommendations