Research guides
Longer-form articles on storing, handling and reconstituting research peptides, and on what the published literature reports for individual compounds — with the model each study used, and what it does not establish.
Lyophilised peptides at -20°C, reconstituted at 2–8°C, ambient in transit. Why the dry cake tolerates shipping, and what actually degrades a vial.
How long lyophilised and reconstituted peptides keep, and the four things that shorten it: temperature, moisture, light and oxidation. Storage figures included.
How to reconstitute a lyophilised peptide with bacteriostatic water without damaging it: why you run the liquid down the vial wall and never shake it.
Bacteriostatic water is sterile water plus 0.9% benzyl alcohol, which is what makes a vial multi-use. When each one is the right choice, and why it matters.
Body Protection Compound 157 has a large rodent literature and almost no human data. What the studies measured, in which models, and the caveat behind them.
The fragment sold as TB-500 is not the molecule most of the literature studied. What the thymosin β4 research reported, including two human eye trials.
The copper tripeptide GHK-Cu has the strongest published evidence of any repair peptide here, spanning wound models, gene expression and cosmetic dermatology.
A selective growth hormone secretagogue with a completed, published human trial. It missed its primary endpoint, and that is the most useful result it has.
The best-known CJC-1295 human trial studied the DAC form, not the no-DAC form sold as Mod GRF 1-29. Why the two have very different pharmacokinetics.
An ACTH(4-10) analogue registered as a medicine in Russia and unknown to Western regulators. What the BDNF work reported, and why the English record looks thin.
A GLP-1 receptor agonist and the active ingredient of EU-authorised medicines. What the trials reported, the discontinuation rates, and the open questions.
A dual GIP and GLP-1 receptor agonist, and the active ingredient of EU-authorised medicines. What the trials reported, and what no trial has studied.
A triple hormone receptor agonist still in development, with no marketing authorisation anywhere. What the published phase 2 work reported, and what it did not.
A growth hormone fragment designed to keep the fat-metabolism activity and drop the rest. The rodent work, and what happened to the clinical programme.
A peptide encoded in mitochondrial rather than nuclear DNA, whose discovery mattered more than the molecule. The founding mouse work, and the ten years since.
Almost all human NAD+ evidence is about oral precursors, not NAD+ itself, because cells take up the intact molecule poorly. The two are not interchangeable.
The first growth hormone releasing peptide, and the one whose lack of selectivity is why every later secretagogue exists. It also raises cortisol and appetite.
One of the most potent secretagogues tested in humans, with a second cardiac literature running through CD36 rather than the growth hormone axis.
A former prescription medicine sold as Geref. The clinical evidence is in children with growth hormone deficiency, and it does not transfer to healthy adults.
An approved medicine in the US with one of the largest trial programmes here. Every efficacy trial was in HIV-associated visceral fat, and that limits it.
An analogue engineered to evade the binding proteins that regulate natural IGF-1 — which is exactly why it is a cell-culture reagent, and why that matters.
A long-established fertility medicine, and a literature that is almost entirely about treating diagnosed endocrine deficiency. Not about weight loss.
A urine-derived preparation carrying both FSH and LH activity. What the long-running head-to-head trials against recombinant FSH actually found.
A settled obstetric medicine with a behavioural literature that became one of psychology's clearest replication problems. Both halves belong together.
A calf thymus extract rather than a defined molecule, with a literature that comes almost entirely from the institute that developed it. Why that matters.
Approved in the EU and US as Scenesse for a rare light-sensitivity disorder. What the trial measured, and why the approval is narrower than it sounds.
No controlled efficacy trial has ever been published. The indexed literature is dominated by dermatology case reports of naevi after injection.
Approved in the US as Vyleesi, with two phase 3 trials and a published safety programme. The mechanism is neural at MC4R, not vascular like PDE5 inhibitors.
A topical cosmetic peptide with a coherent SNARE mechanism and almost no independent indexed literature. The absence of published work is the honest headline.
A tuftsin-derived anxiolytic registered as a medicine in Russia. Its defining reported property is what it lacks: sedation. The rodent evidence, and the limits.
A terminally capped Semax with no literature of its own. What the capping is meant to do, and why every claim about it is borrowed from a different molecule.
Selank with both termini capped, and the same evidence problem as its Semax counterpart: a plausible stability modification nobody has published a study on.
A TREK-1 blocker that came out of mouse genetics rather than drug screening, putting it outside the monoamine story entirely. All of it is preclinical.
A tetrapeptide investigated for telomerase activity, with a literature long dominated by one institute — and a recent independent replication worth reading.
The three-residue tail of α-MSH keeps the anti-inflammatory activity and drops the pigmentation. What the murine colitis work reported, and how thin it is.
The only cathelicidin humans make, with a physical antimicrobial mechanism and a published randomised trial in venous leg ulcers. Also genuinely double-edged.
An erythropoietin fragment engineered to keep the tissue protection and drop the red-cell activity, with a published randomised trial in type 2 diabetes.
One of very few compounds here to reach phase 3. The MMPOWER-3 trial missed its primary endpoints, and that result is the most useful thing it has.
Two repair peptides in one vial and no published study of the pair. What each component's literature covers, and why a blend is weaker evidence than its parts.
Two receptors, one gland — the most coherent blend rationale here, and still no published trial of the pairing. What each component's evidence actually shows.
Three peptides in one vial and no published study of the three together. What each component's literature covers, and why three components is harder than two.
Four peptides in one vial, and the attribution problem at its most acute: nothing observed with the mixture can be traced to any single component.
Two Russian-developed neuroactive peptides in one vial, each registered there and neither as a combination. What is published on each, and what it rests on.