Where to post

• Research Education covers fundamentals: storage, reconstitution, analytical testing, reading papers, and ethics. Each of those subforums has a starter thread.
• Comparisons is for structured head-to-head discussion of commonly paired compounds.
• Research Compounds has single-compound discussion.
• Research Logs is for dated, factual notes on ongoing work.
• Supplier Reviews is for documentation-backed reviews only. Please follow the template in that forum.
• General Discussion is right here, for everything else.

Ground rules

• Back claims with sources where you can, and be clear about whether evidence is from animal or human studies.
• Disclose affiliations with suppliers, labs, or related sites.
• No unapproved referral codes, discount links, or promotional posts.
• Nothing here is medical advice. Personal medical questions belong with a clinician.
• Be civil. Disagree with the argument, not the person.

Feel free to introduce yourself below, or suggest subforums you'd like to see added.

Shared background

• Both were developed in Russia at the Institute of Molecular Genetics of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Both are registered as medicines in Russia, but neither is approved by the FDA or EMA.
• Both are short synthetic peptides with a C-terminal Pro-Gly-Pro extension added to a natural parent sequence. The extension is intended to slow enzymatic breakdown.
• Much of the literature is Russian-language and comes from a fairly small number of groups. Large Western RCTs are lacking for both.

Semax

• Its parent is ACTH(4–7), a fragment of adrenocorticotropic hormone with no meaningful hormonal (adrenal) activity.
• Research has focused on neuroprotection and cognition, including use after stroke in Russian clinical practice. Studies report effects on BDNF expression and on dopaminergic and serotonergic systems.

Selank

• Its parent is tuftsin, an immunomodulatory tetrapeptide.
• Research has focused on anxiety. Proposed mechanisms include modulation of GABAergic signaling and inhibition of enkephalin-degrading enzymes, plus some immunomodulatory effects.

Bottom line

Semax research leans cognitive and neuroprotective, and Selank research leans anxiolytic. For both, mechanism claims are ahead of robust human outcome data.

If you've found good papers on either one, especially independent replications, please share them below.

Tirzepatide (GIP/GLP-1 dual agonist)

• It's approved for type 2 diabetes (Mounjaro) and chronic weight management (Zepbound), and has since gained further indications.
• It's backed by large phase 3 programs: SURPASS for diabetes and SURMOUNT for obesity. In SURMOUNT-1, mean weight reduction at 72 weeks was roughly 15–21% depending on dose, vs. about 3% on placebo.
• There is now a substantial body of long-term safety data. The most common adverse events are GI effects (nausea, diarrhea, vomiting), mostly during dose escalation.

Retatrutide (GIP/GLP-1/glucagon triple agonist)

• It's investigational and not approved anywhere.
• The phase 2 obesity trial (published in NEJM in 2023) reported mean weight reduction of up to about 24% at 48 weeks at the highest dose.
• The phase 3 TRIUMPH program is underway. Check the latest company releases and publications for readouts.
• The glucagon-receptor component is thought to increase energy expenditure and affect liver fat, which is an active research interest. Its effects on heart rate and other safety signals are being watched in phase 3.

Comparing them fairly

• Cross-trial comparisons are shaky. Populations, durations, and dose-escalation schemes differ. Only a head-to-head trial gives a clean comparison.
• Phase 2 results often shrink somewhat in larger phase 3 populations.
• As the forum description notes, research-grade material is not the same product as the approved pharmaceutical and isn't interchangeable with it.

Share trial readouts and papers below as they come out.

Disclose affiliations

If you work for, are paid by, or hold an interest in a supplier, testing lab, or related site, say so when it's relevant. It doesn't disqualify what you post. It lets readers weigh it fairly.

Understand what "research use only" means

Research-grade compounds aren't manufactured or regulated as pharmaceuticals. That's a different standard from approved drugs, even when the molecule is nominally the same.

Represent evidence accurately

• Don't present animal or cell data as if it were established human evidence.
• Distinguish clearly between published findings and personal impressions.
• Correct yourself when you get something wrong. It builds trust.

Know the legal and regulatory context

The status of these compounds varies by country and changes over time. Many are prohibited in tested sport (WADA). Members are responsible for knowing the rules where they are.

Respect privacy

Don't post other people's personal information, and redact order or shipping details from anything you share.

What other ethical questions should the community be thinking about? Discussion welcome below.

1. What model was used?

Roughly in order of how directly results translate to humans: in vitro (cells) → animal (usually rodent) → small human pilot → randomized controlled trial → multiple RCTs or meta-analysis. Plenty of compounds look great in rodents and do nothing in people.

2. How was it designed?

• Was there a control group, and was it appropriate?
• Were treatment and outcome assessment randomized and blinded?
• How big was the sample? Small n plus many outcomes makes a false positive likely.
• Was the primary outcome pre-specified, or picked after seeing the data?

3. Does the dose and route translate?

Animal doses don't map linearly onto humans, and the route of administration (oral, injected, topical, local) changes pharmacokinetics a lot. Be cautious when a study's dose or route is very different from what's being discussed.

4. Has anyone else replicated it?

Independent replication from a different lab is one of the strongest signals available. A large literature from a single group is weaker than it looks.

5. Who funded it, and where was it published?

Funding and venue don't decide whether a result is correct, but they're context worth noting. Watch out for predatory journals.

When you share a paper, try to note which of these it does well or poorly. It makes discussions much more productive.

Common terms

• Peptide: a short chain of amino acids, generally under about 50 residues. Longer chains are usually called proteins.
• Lyophilized: freeze-dried. Most research peptides ship as a lyophilized powder.
• Reconstitution: dissolving the powder in a diluent. See the Reconstitution subforum.
• COA: certificate of analysis, the testing report for a batch. See the Certificates of Analysis subforum.
• HPLC / MS: the two most common analytical tests. HPLC estimates purity and MS confirms molecular mass (identity).
• Agonist: a compound that activates a receptor. You'll see this a lot in the GLP-1 and GH-secretagogue discussions.
• Preclinical vs. clinical: preclinical means cell or animal studies, and clinical means human trials. This distinction matters a lot when weighing claims.

Getting good answers

• Name the exact compound. For example, specify whether you mean the TB-500 fragment or full Tβ4.
• Say what you've already read or checked.
• If you're asking about a claim, include where you saw it.
• Search first. Your question may already have a thread in one of the compound or comparison forums.

A note on scope

Members here can discuss published research, analytical testing, and handling. This forum is not a substitute for medical advice, and individual medical questions belong with a clinician.

Traceability

• Does the batch or lot number match the label on your vial?
• Is there a test date, and is it recent relative to the batch?
• Is the testing lab named? Is it in-house or an independent third party?
• Can the lab verify the report if you contact them with the report number?

Content

• Identity: MS data with observed vs. theoretical mass. Purity data alone doesn't confirm identity.
• Purity: an HPLC trace, ideally with method details, not just a percentage.
• Quantity: some COAs report net peptide content or actual mg per vial. This is less common, but useful, because labeled mg and actual peptide content can differ.
• Extras: endotoxin, sterility, or heavy-metals testing appear on some COAs. Absence isn't necessarily a red flag, but presence is a plus.

Red flags

• Identical COAs (same numbers, same chromatogram) reused across different batches or compounds
• No raw data, only a summary table
• Purity reported to implausible precision with no method listed
• Lab name that can't be found or won't confirm the report
• Mismatched compound names, molecular weights, or sequences

Feel free to post COAs below for discussion. Please redact anything personal, such as order numbers or addresses.

The basics

• Most peptide COAs use ESI-MS (electrospray) or MALDI-TOF.
• ESI usually produces multiply charged ions, so you'll see a series of peaks at m/z = (M + nH)/n. The software deconvolutes these back to a single molecular mass.
• MALDI typically shows mostly singly charged + ions, which are easier to read by eye.

What to check

• Observed vs. theoretical mass. The COA should list both. For small peptides, agreement within about 1 Da is typical for routine instruments, and high-resolution instruments should be much tighter.
• Monoisotopic vs. average mass. Make sure you're comparing like with like. The two can differ by more than 1 Da for larger peptides.
• Common adducts. Peaks at +22 (Na) or +38 (K) relative to + are usually adducts, not impurities.
• Telltale modifications. +16 often means oxidation (for example, Met), and +1 can indicate deamidation. Masses well below the target can point to truncated sequences.

Limits

Standard MS confirms mass, not sequence. Two peptides with the same composition in a different order can have identical masses, and so can D/L isomers. Sequence confirmation needs MS/MS fragmentation. For most routine verification, though, a matching mass plus a good HPLC trace is a reasonable baseline.

Post spectra below if you want help interpreting one.

What it shows

Reversed-phase HPLC separates components by hydrophobicity. Purity is usually reported as the main peak's area as a percentage of total peak area at a given UV wavelength, often 214–220 nm, where peptide bonds absorb.

What it doesn't show

• Identity. A clean single peak tells you the sample is mostly one thing. It doesn't tell you what that thing is. You need mass spec for identity.
• Net peptide content. Area-% purity ignores water, counter-ions (such as TFA or acetate), and salts. A sample can be 99% pure by HPLC and still be well under 100% peptide by weight.
• Co-eluting impurities. Closely related impurities, such as deletion sequences or some diastereomers, can hide under the main peak.
• Anything that doesn't absorb at the detection wavelength.

Things to check on a chromatogram

• Is the actual trace included, or just a number?
• Are the method details listed (column, gradient, wavelength)?
• Does the integration look reasonable, with no obvious peaks left out?
• Does the batch number match the vial?

Post chromatograms below if you'd like a second set of eyes on one.

Choosing a diluent

• Sterile water has no preservative. It's appropriate for single-use preparations.
• Bacteriostatic water (water with 0.9% benzyl alcohol) inhibits microbial growth. That's why it's commonly used when a vial will be accessed more than once.
• Some hydrophobic or aggregation-prone sequences don't dissolve well in water alone. Published methods sometimes use dilute acetic acid or other solvents. Check the sequence and the literature before improvising.

Technique

• Let the vial reach room temperature first.
• Run the diluent slowly down the inside wall of the vial instead of jetting it straight onto the powder.
• Swirl or roll gently. Don't shake. Vigorous agitation can cause foaming and aggregation.
• Use aseptic technique: swab the stopper, use sterile supplies, and don't reuse them.
• Label the vial with the date and concentration once it's made up.

If it won't dissolve

Persistent cloudiness or particles can mean an incompatible diluent, aggregation, or a product problem. Don't assume it's fine just because some of it went into solution.

Questions about specific compounds or problem cases are welcome below.