Last reviewed: September 2026
Quick Answer
Most BPC-157 studies were run by one research group. In the 2025 systematic review that screened 544 papers and included 36, we counted 24 studies with Predrag Sikirić or Sven Seiwerth of the University of Zagreb School of Medicine in the author list [1]. Every animal injury-model study in that review came from the Zagreb group. Semax, Selank and Epitalon show the same shape: each traces to a single originating institution, and only Epitalon has been reproduced in a laboratory with no link to its originators [12].
Key Takeaways
- The 2025 systematic review in HSS Journal screened 544 articles and included 36, of which 35 were preclinical and one was clinical [1].
- By our own count of that included set, 24 of the 36 papers (67%) list Sikirić or Seiwerth as an author.
- All 11 animal injury-model studies in the review came from the Zagreb group. The two non-Zagreb musculoskeletal studies were cell-culture work from Chang Gung University in Taiwan [1,11].
- Three published human studies of BPC-157 exist. All three share a lead author, Edwin Lee, and all three appear in the same journal [8,9,10].
- A Polish research team put the single-group share at over 80% of records, but published that figure without a search query or a date [5].
- The claim that BPC-157 occurs naturally in the body is disputed by peptide chemists, by a Taiwanese researcher who has studied it, and by Sikirić's own longtime collaborator [3,4].
- Epitalon is the only one of the four with a documented replication by an unaffiliated group: Al-dulaimi and colleagues at Brunel University London, published in 2025 and later corrected for figure errors [12,13].
Research Use Only
Every compound named on this page is sold by 99 Purity Peptides for laboratory research use only. Nothing here is medical, veterinary, dosing or health advice. These materials are not for human or veterinary consumption. This article discusses who produced the published evidence and how much of it has been checked by others. It makes no claim that any compound treats anything.
Are There Human Studies on BPC-157?
Three published human studies of BPC-157 exist, and all three come from the same clinician. McGuire and colleagues, reviewing the literature in Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine, describe the 2021 knee-pain paper as one of only three published human studies of the compound [19]. The other two are a 2024 pilot in interstitial cystitis and a 2025 intravenous safety pilot [8,10]. Edwin Lee, a Florida endocrinologist, is the lead author on all three, and Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine published all three.
Size is the next thing to look at. The 2025 safety pilot enrolled two healthy adults, who received infusions of up to 20 mg [8]. The systematic review describes 12 patients in the knee-pain study who received BPC-157 alone, of whom seven reported improvement lasting more than six months [1]. Undark, reporting on Lee's work, says his published studies range from two to 16 participants and have no comparison groups [3].
Human study | Year | Design | Participants | Journal |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Lee and Padgett, knee pain | 2021 | Retrospective, open, no control group | 12 given BPC-157 alone | Altern Ther Health Med |
Lee, Walker and Ayadi, interstitial cystitis | 2024 | Pilot, no control group | Not stated in the review record | Altern Ther Health Med |
Lee and Burgess, intravenous safety | 2025 | Pilot safety, no control group | 2 healthy adults | Altern Ther Health Med |
Two larger efforts produced no public data. The Croatian pharmaceutical company PLIVA ran two early-stage trials of BPC-157 in ulcerative colitis in the 2000s, and Undark reports that no resulting paper appears in PubMed or other major databases [4]. A Phase I trial registered in 2015 submitted results to ClinicalTrials.gov and then withdrew them before outside review [3]. The systematic review found no clinical safety data at all [1].
That is the whole human picture. No randomised controlled trial of BPC-157 has been published for any indication.
Who Discovered BPC-157, and Who Has Studied It Since?
Predrag Sikirić began the work in 1983 at the University of Zagreb School of Medicine, building on an idea he first had as a medical student in 1975. Undark's 2026 profile describes the team collecting gastric juice from hospitals and slaughterhouses, screening it for years, and naming the 15-amino-acid fragment they isolated in 1989 [4]. The earliest PubMed entry for the compound is a 1992 paper authored by Sikirić and 17 others, and Undark reports that he has since published more than 150 papers on it [3].
So how concentrated is the literature? A Polish team reviewed the compound in Pharmaceuticals in 2025 and raised safety questions [7]. Sikirić and 15 co-authors published a formal objection in the same journal, arguing the criticisms should be dismissed [6]. The Polish reply to that objection put the concentration at over 80% of records linked to Sikirić's group, on Google Scholar and PubMed [5], and it is the source most often cited for that figure. Worth knowing before you repeat it: the paper states the number without giving the search string, the database, the date it was run, or how authorship was assigned. STAT's paraphrase of the same passage says roughly 200 BPC-157 studies are listed on PubMed, most with Sikirić or Seiwerth as a main author [3].
We could not reproduce that figure, because we could not run a documented PubMed query for this article. What we could do is count a defined, published set that anyone can check.
The 2025 systematic review lists all 36 studies it included, with full citations [1]. We assigned each one to a research group by author list, counting a paper as Zagreb-affiliated if Sikirić or Seiwerth appears among its authors. The result:
Group or institution | Studies in the included set | Share | What they contributed |
|---|---|---|---|
University of Zagreb (Sikirić, Seiwerth and co-workers) | 23 | 64% | Injury models, cytoprotection, mechanism work |
Zagreb in collaboration with an outside lab | 1 | 3% | Brain serotonin study with McGill University |
Chang Gung University, Taiwan | 4 | 11% | Tendon-cell and vascular mechanism work |
Academic and industrial groups in mainland China | 4 | 11% | Wound healing, pharmacokinetics, preclinical safety |
Anti-doping laboratories (United States, China) | 2 | 6% | Detection and metabolite work |
PLIVA Research Institute, Zagreb | 1 | 3% | Wound-healing study during the licensing period |
Private clinic, United States | 1 | 3% | The single clinical study |
Twenty-four of 36 papers carry a Zagreb-group author. That is 67%, lower than the 80%-plus figure quoted elsewhere, and it applies only to this review's musculoskeletal-relevant set rather than the whole literature. The method has real limits. Author lists in the review are abbreviated with "et al." for many entries, so we checked full author lists on publisher records where the abbreviation hid the answer. A count taken from one review is a snapshot of that review's inclusion criteria, not a census.
What Does Independent Replication Actually Mean?
Independent replication means a different laboratory, with different investigators and ideally different funding, running the same experiment and getting the same result. Shared authorship breaks it. A former student who now runs their own lab but still publishes with the original group is not an independent check, because the same assumptions, reagents and analytic habits travel with the people.
Internal consistency is not a substitute. Sikirić and Seiwerth estimate that 100 or more current and former PhD students have worked on the project [4]. A group that size can produce a very consistent body of work while still sharing a single set of methods. Consistency within one tradition tells you the tradition is coherent. It does not tell you the effect is real.
Three things would change the picture for any of these compounds. Preregistered animal studies from unaffiliated groups, reporting whatever they find. A properly powered human trial with a control group and published data. Full method disclosure, so others can reproduce the original isolation. We applied that same standard to all four compounds below, with no adjustment for how well known any of them is.
There is a prior question for BPC-157 that replication cannot settle. Anna Mapp, a chemist at the University of Michigan and president of the American Peptide Society, reviewed the team's patent for Undark and found it thin on detail, with the parent protein's molecular weight unpinned and its full sequence never published [4]. Without that sequence, the original isolation cannot be reproduced at all. Mapp also noted that no genetic material coding for the peptide's sequence has been found in the human genome or gut microbiome. Jong-Hwei Su Pang of Chang Gung University, whose own group has studied the compound, told Undark it might instead be produced by stomach microbes, since the sequence does not appear in the human genome [3].
Sandor Szabo, Sikirić's longtime collaborator, told Undark the original team may have misread an amino acid sequence decades ago with the analytical tools of the time, and called it an honest mistake [4]. Sikirić rejects the idea and points to papers from Taiwan and to immunostaining images from his laboratory [4]. Whatever the resolution, vendor pages and the 2025 systematic review both describe BPC-157 as "naturally occurring" [1]. That description is contested by named researchers in print, and it should not be repeated as settled.
Has Anyone Outside the Original Lab Repeated the Animal Work?
Partly, and the split is sharp. Of the 14 studies reporting musculoskeletal outcomes in the 2025 review, 11 are animal injury models, and all 11 came from the Zagreb group [1]. Tendon transection, quadriceps transection, muscle crush, rabbit bone defect, ligament transection: every one.
The two non-Zagreb musculoskeletal entries are cell-culture studies from Chang Gung University in Taiwan, reporting tendon-explant outgrowth and growth hormone receptor expression in cultured fibroblasts [1,11]. That is a real independent finding at the cell level. It is not a replication of an injury-model result, because no injury was involved.
Outside the musculoskeletal set, independent groups have published. The Taiwanese team reported VEGFR2 activation in an angiogenesis model, and the same group later reported effects on vasomotor tone [1]. Chinese groups published wound healing, pharmacokinetics and preclinical safety work. Anti-doping laboratories in the United States and China characterised metabolites for detection purposes, which is analytical chemistry rather than an efficacy check.
Undark's reporting lines up with this. It notes that teams in Taiwan, South Korea, China and Turkey have published on BPC-157, all reporting positive results and few side effects, while Michael Parnham, a former senior scientific adviser at PLIVA, observed that a compound with no side effects is probably not very active [4].
We searched PubMed records, PubMed Central and general web sources in September 2026 for an animal injury-model study of BPC-157 with no Zagreb-affiliated author. We found none in the 2025 review's included set and none outside it. Absence of a finding in those searches is not proof that none exists.
Where Did Semax, Selank and Epitalon Come From?
Each has a single institutional origin, and in two cases the same one.
Semax came out of the Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, now part of the Kurchatov Institute. It is a synthetic peptide whose N-terminal fragment copies ACTH(4-7), with a Pro-Gly-Pro tail added for metabolic stability [14]. Nikolai Myasoedov led the chemistry programme, and papers from that institute still carry his name and that of Svetlana Limborska decades later [14]. The most cited human study enrolled 30 patients in acute hemispheric ischaemic stroke against 80 conventionally treated controls, published in Russian in 1997 [15]. Myasoedov is one of its six authors, so the compound's co-developer is on the principal clinical paper.
Selank came from the same institute, in cooperation with the V.V. Zakusov Research Institute of Pharmacology [16]. It is a synthetic analogue of tuftsin, a four-residue fragment of immunoglobulin G, extended with the same Pro-Gly-Pro tail [16,17]. A Russian clinical study compared 30 patients given Selank with 32 given medazepam in generalised anxiety disorder and neurasthenia, reporting similar anxiolytic effects [18]. The mechanistic work is also institutional: the 2017 cell study most often cited for Selank's relationship to GABA signalling was written at the Institute of Molecular Genetics, with Limborska and Myasoedov among the authors [16].
Epitalon is a tetrapeptide, Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly, synthesised from the amino acid composition of epithalamin, a bovine pineal extract. Vladimir Khavinson's programme at the St Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology developed it, and a 2025 Polish review notes the synthesis was patented in June 2000 [2]. The foundational telomerase reports came from Khavinson's own group.
Then something changed. In 2025, Al-dulaimi, Thomas, Matta and Roberts at Brunel University London published a study in Biogerontology reporting that Epitalon extended telomere length in normal human mammary epithelial cells and fibroblasts through hTERT and telomerase upregulation, and extended telomeres in two breast cancer lines through a different route, alternative lengthening of telomeres [12]. No author on that paper is affiliated with the St Petersburg institute. The journal later published a correction because the wrong figures appeared in three figures of the original article [13]. Both facts belong in the record.
We searched for equivalent independent replications of the Semax and Selank clinical findings by groups outside the Russian institutional network, using PubMed records, PubMed Central and general web search in September 2026. We found none. We also found no non-Russian trial of either compound. What exists outside Russia is chemistry and coordination work, not clinical confirmation.
How Do the Four Compounds Compare on Provenance?
How we graded the evidence
We applied three criteria identically to each compound. Concentration asks what share of the literature carries an author from the originating group. Human evidence asks what type of study exists and how many people were in it, counting only published work. Replication asks whether a laboratory with no shared authorship and no institutional link to the originators has reported the same effect. A compound scores "independent replication found" only if all three conditions hold. Grades describe the evidence, not the compound.
Compound | Originating group | Earliest key publication | Human evidence available | Independent replication found | Grade |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
BPC-157 | Sikirić and Seiwerth, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Croatia | 1992 (PubMed) | Three published studies, 2 to 16 participants, no control groups, one journal, one lead author | Partial. Cell-level work in Taiwan and China. No animal injury model outside Zagreb in our search | Weak. Concentrated, and the clinical base is a single source |
Semax | Myasoedov and colleagues, Institute of Molecular Genetics RAS, Moscow | 1997 (clinical) | Russian studies, including 30 treated against 80 controls, not randomised | None found. Searched PubMed, PMC and web, September 2026 | Weak to moderate. More human data than the others, none of it independent |
Selank | Institute of Molecular Genetics RAS with the Zakusov Institute of Pharmacology, Moscow | 2008 (clinical comparison) | One 62-patient comparison against medazepam, 30 versus 32 | None found. Searched PubMed, PMC and web, September 2026 | Weak. Small, single-country, single-network |
Epitalon | Khavinson, St Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology | Patented June 2000; telomerase reports from 2003 | Observational cohorts, much of it using the parent extract rather than synthetic AEDG | Yes, at cell level. Brunel University London, 2025, with a later figure correction | Moderate at cell level, weak in humans |
Epitalon is the only row with a yes in the replication column, and that yes covers cell culture only. Nobody has repeated the lifespan or cohort results outside the originating tradition.
What This Does and Does Not Tell You
A concentrated literature is a reason to hold conclusions loosely. It is not a verdict on any compound, and it is not a statement about anyone's honesty. Small fields often start this way. One group has an idea, spends decades on it, trains the students, and nobody else picks it up because the funding or the interest is elsewhere. Undark's account of Zagreb in the 1980s and 1990s describes exactly those conditions [4].
Here is what the pattern does establish. Confirmation bias is harder to catch inside one tradition, as the Polish team argued in print [5]. Dose ranges narrow when one group sets the protocol, and they noted that most BPC-157 experiments use a single dose level [5]. Negative results are less likely to be published by the people whose careers rest on the compound, which is true of any field and not specific to these four.
What it does not establish is that the findings are wrong. Szabo's position is worth holding in mind: he doubts the peptide is made by the body and still believes the protective effect in cell cultures and rodents is real, including in his own hands [4].
Our reading, applied evenly: the animal work on BPC-157 is internally consistent and externally unchecked, which makes it interesting and not yet load-bearing. The human evidence for BPC-157 is too small and too concentrated to carry any weight at all. Semax has the most human data of the four and the least independent scrutiny of it, which is an uncomfortable combination. Epitalon has the strongest single piece of independent evidence, at the cell level, and the weakest human record. None of the four has a published randomised controlled trial with results in the public domain.
For evidence grading across a wider set of compounds, see the site's guide to evaluating longevity peptide research. For a compound whose systematic review we cite on the same numbers, see the larazotide and coeliac disease research page.
Where to Read More
For compound-level detail, the site covers what the reported side-effect literature on BPC-157 contains, the current legal and regulatory position, and what the preclinical record says about BPC-157 and TB-500 together. For the two Moscow compounds, see how Semax and Selank differ in design, the Semax cognitive research record and the Selank stress-response research record. For the pineal tetrapeptide, see the Epitalon nasal spray research page and the DSIP and Epitalon comparison.
Provenance applies to materials as well as papers. If you are reproducing published work, the identity and purity of what is in the vial decide whether your result means anything. Learn how to read a certificate of analysis, then check the lot documentation library. Research materials with lot documentation are available for BPC-157, Semax and Epitalon spray, supplied for laboratory research use only.
References
- Vasireddi N, Hahamyan H, Salata MJ, et al. Emerging Use of BPC-157 in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: A Systematic Review. HSS J. 2025;21(4):485-495. PMID 40756949. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12313605/
- Araj SK, Brzezik J, Mądra-Gackowska K, Szeleszczuk Ł. Overview of Epitalon, Highly Bioactive Pineal Tetrapeptide with Promising Properties. Int J Mol Sci. 2025;26(6):2691. PMID 40141333. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40141333/
- Talpos S. How a Croatian Lab Spawned a Buzzy Peptide Now Popular With MAHA. Undark, co-published with STAT News, 3 February 2026. https://undark.org/2026/02/03/bpc-157-peptide-fda/
- Talpos S. A Peptide, a Secretive Scientist, and a Debate Over Evidence. Undark, 29 May 2026, co-published with STAT News, 1 June 2026. https://undark.org/2026/05/29/stress-test-bpc-157-history/
- Józwiak M, Bauer M, Kamysz W, Kleczkowska P. Reply to Sikiric et al. Comment on Józwiak et al. Multifunctionality and Possible Medical Application of the BPC 157 Peptide. Pharmaceuticals. 2025;18(10):1451. doi:10.3390/ph18101451. https://doi.org/10.3390/ph18101451
- Sikiric P, Seiwerth S, Skrtic A, et al. BPC 157 Therapy: Targeting Angiogenesis and Nitric Oxide's Cytotoxic and Damaging Actions. Comment on Józwiak et al. Pharmaceuticals. 2025;18(10):1450. https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8247/18/10/1450
- Józwiak M, Bauer M, Kamysz W, Kleczkowska P. Multifunctionality and Possible Medical Application of the BPC 157 Peptide, Literature and Patent Review. Pharmaceuticals. 2025;18(2):185. PMID 40005999. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40005999/
- Lee E, Burgess K. Safety of Intravenous Infusion of BPC157 in Humans: A Pilot Study. Altern Ther Health Med. 2025;31(5):20-24. PMID 40131143. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40131143/
- Lee E, Padgett B. Intra-Articular Injection of BPC 157 for Multiple Types of Knee Pain. Altern Ther Health Med. 2021;27:8-13. PMID 34324435. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34324435/
- Lee E, Walker C, Ayadi B. Effect of BPC-157 on symptoms in patients with interstitial cystitis: a pilot study. Altern Ther Health Med. 2024;30:12-17. Cited in McGuire et al. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12178-025-09990-7
- Chang CH, Tsai WC, Lin MS, Hsu YH, Pang JS. The promoting effect of pentadecapeptide BPC 157 on tendon healing involves tendon outgrowth, cell survival, and cell migration. J Appl Physiol. 2011;110(3):774-780. PMID 21030672. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21030672/
- Al-dulaimi S, Thomas R, Matta S, Roberts T. Epitalon increases telomere length in human cell lines through telomerase upregulation or ALT activity. Biogerontology. 2025;26:178. doi:10.1007/s10522-025-10315-x. https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/32003/1/FullText.pdf
- Al-dulaimi S, Thomas R, Matta S, Roberts T. Correction: Epitalon increases telomere length in human cell lines through telomerase upregulation or ALT activity. Biogerontology. 2025;27(1):1. doi:10.1007/s10522-025-10326-8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12619744/
- Medvedeva EV, Dmitrieva VG, Limborska SA, Myasoedov NF, Dergunova LV. Semax, an analog of ACTH(4-7), regulates expression of immune response genes during ischemic brain injury in rats. Mol Genet Genomics. 2017. PMID 28255762. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28255762/
- Gusev EI, Skvortsova VI, Miasoedov NF, Nezavibat'ko VN, Zhuravleva EIu, Vanichkin AV. Effectiveness of semax in acute period of hemispheric ischemic stroke, a clinical and electrophysiological study. Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im S S Korsakova. 1997;97(6):26-34. PMID 11517472. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11517472/
- Filatova E, Kasian A, Kolomin T, et al. GABA, Selank, and Olanzapine Affect the Expression of Genes Involved in GABAergic Neurotransmission in IMR-32 Cells. Front Pharmacol. 2017;8:89. PMID 28293190. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28293190/
- Kolik LG, Nadorova AV, Antipova TA, et al. Selank, a Peptide Analog of Tuftsin, Attenuates Aversive Signs of Morphine Withdrawal in Rats. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2022. PMID 36322304. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36322304/
- Zozulia AA, Neznamov GG, Siuniakov TS, et al. Efficacy and possible mechanisms of action of a new peptide anxiolytic selank in the therapy of generalized anxiety disorders and neurasthenia. Zh Nevrol Psikhiatr Im S S Korsakova. 2008;108(4):38-48. PMID 18454096. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18454096/
- McGuire FP, Martinez R, Lenz A, Skinner L, Cushman DM. Regeneration or Risk? A Narrative Review of BPC-157 for Musculoskeletal Healing. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med. 2025;18(12):611-619. PMID 40789979. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40789979/
Frequently Asked Questions
Are there human studies on BPC-157?
Three published human studies exist. A 2021 retrospective report on knee pain, a 2024 pilot in interstitial cystitis, and a 2025 intravenous safety pilot in two healthy adults. All three share a lead author and appear in the same journal, none had a control group, and no randomised controlled trial has been published for any indication.
Who discovered BPC-157?
Predrag Sikirić, a pharmacologist at the University of Zagreb School of Medicine in Croatia. He began searching gastric juice for a protective compound in 1983, after having the idea as a medical student in 1975, and his team isolated the 15-amino-acid fragment in 1989. The earliest PubMed entry for the compound dates to 1992.
Who invented BPC-157?
The same team that isolated it. Sikirić named it and has led the programme since, working closely with pathologist Sven Seiwerth since the 1980s. Sikirić has also been named on patent applications relating to the compound dating back to at least 1989, and he holds commercial interests connected to it, as Undark reported in 2026.
Is BPC-157 evidence based?
It depends what you mean. A substantial preclinical literature exists, mostly in rats, and it is internally consistent. Almost none of it has been checked by unaffiliated laboratories, no animal injury-model study outside the originating group appears in the 2025 systematic review, and the human record consists of three uncontrolled reports from one clinic.
How many BPC-157 studies are there?
Around 200 records are indexed in PubMed, according to STAT's 2026 reporting. The 2025 systematic review screened 544 articles and included 36 after removing duplicates and applying its criteria. Counts vary with the search terms used, so treat any single figure as a snapshot rather than a fixed number.
Where can I find BPC-157 studies on PubMed?
Search PubMed for "BPC-157" or "BPC 157", and add the compound's alternative names to widen the result: gastric pentadecapeptide, BPC-15, PL-14736, bepecin, PLD-116 and PCO-02. That is the search strategy the 2025 systematic review used across PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Library.
Have BPC-157 studies been replicated?
Partly. Groups in Taiwan and mainland China have published cell-culture, wound-healing and pharmacokinetic work with no Zagreb-affiliated author. The animal injury-model results, which are the ones most often quoted, have not been repeated outside the originating group in any study we located.
Why do most BPC-157 studies come from one group?
Because one group has worked on it continuously for four decades and nobody else took up the problem. Sikirić and Seiwerth estimate that more than 100 current and former PhD students have passed through the project. The compound also lost its industrial backer in 2006, so no pharmaceutical company has funded a competing programme since.
Is anecdotal evidence for BPC-157 reliable?
No. Self-reported outcomes carry no control group, no blinding and no verification of what was actually in the vial. Online reports include both benefits and unpleasant effects, and neither set can be attributed to the compound. Undark quotes one user who said the dearth of human research makes it impossible to rule out placebo.
What did STAT News report about BPC-157?
STAT co-published two Undark investigations. The February 2026 piece reported that nearly all data comes from one Croatian group, that human data is minimal, and that the compound has become a test case in US drug policy. The June 2026 profile covered Sikirić's 50-year programme and the dispute over whether the peptide occurs in the body.
What does the 2025 BPC-157 systematic review conclude?
Vasireddi and colleagues screened 544 articles and included 36, of which 35 were preclinical. They found improved structural and functional outcomes in animal injury models, no acute toxicity in animals under six weeks, and no clinical safety data. They recommended caution because of the lack of high-quality clinical evidence.
Where did Semax come from?
The Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow, now part of the Kurchatov Institute. Nikolai Myasoedov led the chemistry. Semax copies the ACTH(4-7) fragment and adds a Pro-Gly-Pro tail for stability. Its principal clinical study, published in Russian in 1997, lists Myasoedov among its authors.
Where did Selank come from?
The same Moscow institute, working with the V.V. Zakusov Research Institute of Pharmacology. Selank is a synthetic analogue of tuftsin, a four-residue fragment of immunoglobulin G, with the same Pro-Gly-Pro tail Semax uses. Its best-known clinical study compared 30 patients given Selank against 32 given medazepam.
Where did Epitalon come from?
Vladimir Khavinson's programme at the St Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology. The tetrapeptide Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly was synthesised from the amino acid composition of epithalamin, a bovine pineal extract, and the synthesis was patented in June 2000. A 2025 Polish review summarises 25 years of resulting work.
What would count as strong evidence for a research peptide?
Three things together. A published isolation or synthesis complete enough for others to reproduce. Preregistered animal studies from unaffiliated laboratories reporting whatever they find, including null results. A properly powered human trial with a control group, blinding where feasible, and results published in full rather than withdrawn.
