From vial to experiment: a peptide lot-traceability checklist
Build a record that connects the received material, its documentation and the experiments that used it. Includes a reusable checklist for a research notebook.
A useful traceability record lets another person answer a simple question: exactly which material was used in this experiment, and which documents support its description?
The hard part is often the connection between records. A vial label, a saved PDF and an assay spreadsheet may each be clear on their own while lacking a reliable link to one another.
Give the received material one internal record
Start a receiving record before the material is distributed across a project. The following template is a suggested workflow, not a regulatory standard.
| Field | What to record |
|---|---|
| Internal material ID | Your laboratory's unique identifier |
| Supplier and product | The name, catalog reference and ordered specification |
| Received label | Lot identifier and other identifying text, copied exactly |
| Receipt | Date, receiver and any observed issue |
| Supporting report | Filename, report identifier, version and named sample or lot |
| Document source | Where the report came from and when it was retrieved |
| Assigned location | Storage location under the laboratory's approved procedure |
| Experiment links | Notebook, run and sample identifiers that use this material |
Retain the original document. A renamed file is convenient; the report's own identifier is what makes the reference unambiguous.
Resolve differences instead of smoothing them over
If a label and a report use different identifiers, record both strings exactly. Ask the supplier or issuing laboratory for the relationship in writing. Keep that response with the receiving record.
Do not silently replace one identifier with the other or assume similar-looking numbers are equivalent. The goal is a traceable explanation, not a tidy spreadsheet that conceals an unresolved question.
The same principle applies to missing results. “Not provided in this document” is more informative than a blank cell that later becomes an assumed pass.
Carry the link into the experiment
Use the internal material ID in the experimental record. If the material is divided into working samples, assign child identifiers that point back to the received lot. Record relevant handling events according to the laboratory's procedure.
Before a comparison across experiments, check whether the records refer to the same lot, a replacement lot or a different preparation. Make that distinction visible to the person analyzing the results.
Documentation supports authentication; it does not replace it
NIH's authentication guidance for key biological and chemical resources notes that relevant resources can vary and affect research. For grant applications within its scope, vendor authentication does not remove the need to describe the investigator's own authentication approach.
That is a specific funding-policy context, not a blanket rule for every laboratory. It also illustrates a useful distinction: knowing where a material came from and establishing that it is fit for an experiment are separate tasks.
For FIG report-location and authenticity guidance, use Quality & COAs. Keep any lot-specific question tied to the actual vial and report when contacting the team.
This library discusses laboratory research and published methods. It does not provide medical advice or establish the suitability of any product for human or veterinary use.