myPeptides
English

All content is for general information only — not medical advice, not a dosing or usage recommendation, and not a claim of efficacy. Many substances are not approved as medicines or are prescription-only; whether possession and use are legal depends on the law of your country of residence and is your own responsibility. myPeptides does not sell or supply any substances — it is an information and organization tool. For health questions, consult a licensed physician or pharmacist.

GLOW vs KLOW: differences, evidence and safety

Updated September 25, 202612 min

GLOW vs KLOW: differences, evidence and safety

Answer first

GLOW and KLOW are trade names for peptide blends, not tested products. GLOW combines GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500, and KLOW holds the same three plus KPV. No study of either mixture could be found. Each ingredient has its own record, mostly from animals and cells, and none is approved as an injectable medicine anywhere.

At a glance

AttributeGLOWKLOW
BlendGLOW Peptide BlendKLOW (80 mg Blend)
Components
Number of components34
Total per vial70 mg80 mg
Legal categoryLegal status applies per componentLegal status applies per component

How they work

None of the four ingredients has an established mechanism in people. Every point below comes from cells in a dish or from animals, so each is a hypothesis rather than a finding.

GHK-Cu is a copper complex of a three-part peptide the body makes itself [1].

  • Collagen in skin cells. In cultured human skin cells, collagen production rose and peaked at 10⁻⁹ mol/l, with no change in cell number [2].
  • Copper as a second actor. Copper on its own is biologically active. In most papers it is impossible to say whether the peptide, the copper or the complex did the work [3].

BPC-157 is a lab-made chain of 15 building blocks with no established receptor [4].

  • New blood vessels. In human cells lining the blood vessels, it was reported to switch on a receptor for the vessel growth signal VEGF [5].
  • Nitric oxide. A 2025 review names vessel growth and the nitric oxide pathway as the two best supported threads of the laboratory work [4].

TB-500 is a lab-made piece of seven building blocks. It copies positions 17 to 23 of the human protein thymosin β4 and carries a small chemical cap [6].

  • The cell scaffold. It carries the stretch with which thymosin β4 grips actin, the material of the cell scaffold, so it may affect how cells crawl [7].
  • Perhaps a breakdown product. In a 2024 study, only one fragment that the body cuts TB-500 into closed wounds in a dish; the peptide itself did not [8].
  • Not the calming part. The effect of thymosin β4 on inflammation is attributed to a different piece of the protein, one TB-500 does not contain [7].

KPV is the last three building blocks, lysine, proline and valine, of the hormone alpha-MSH [9].

  • No docking onto the parent hormone's receptors. Even at 1 mM it pushed no marked test substance off those receptors and set off no signal in the cell [10], [11].
  • A central inflammation switch. In stirred-up mouse immune cells it kept the switch NF-κB from moving into the nucleus, working best between 1 nM and 1 µM [10].
  • A carrier in the gut wall. A carrier called PepT1 may take KPV into the cells of the bowel [12].

The two blends therefore differ by one ingredient with a separate proposed route. GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500 are discussed around collagen, blood vessels and cell movement. KPV is discussed around the inflammation switch NF-κB, and the FDA states that its actual target is still unknown [9].

What the studies show

No study that compares GLOW and KLOW directly could be found in the published record reviewed for this page. Nor could any study of either mixture, and neither name appears in the studies cited on the four ingredient pages. What exists is research on each ingredient alone, plus one rat study of two of them.

Two ingredients in one experiment

Head-to-head, animal An independent group cut and stitched the Achilles tendons of 32 rats, split them into four groups and examined the tendons after four weeks. Rats received TB-500, BPC-157, both, or nothing [13].

TB-500 at 60 µg/kg a day made the tendons withstand more force before tearing, by more than chance would explain (p < 0.05). Two tissue quality scores also improved, the Bonar score (p = 0.016) and the Movin score (p = 0.017) [13].

BPC-157 tendons held more force than untreated ones, but not by enough to rule out chance, and reached neither score. Giving both together added nothing. The authors describe their work as a first exploration [13]. GHK-Cu and KPV were not part of it.

GHK-Cu: two human trials, both missed

Human RCT In 86 evaluable patients with venous leg ulcers, a copper tripeptide cream at 0.4 per cent was compared with an inert dummy cream. The paper reports plainly: "There was no difference between the latter two treatments." [14]

Human RCT Thirteen patients completed a randomised trial of a GHK-Cu skin care regime after CO2 laser resurfacing, assessed over 12 weeks. No objective measure of wrinkles or skin quality improved. Only self-reported satisfaction was higher (p = 0.04) [15].

Animal data In rats with poorly supplied open wounds, the wound area shrank by 64.5 per cent under a copper tripeptide gel by day 13. Under the vehicle gel it shrank by 45.6 per cent, and with no treatment by 28.2 per cent [16].

All of this concerns skin application. Through donated human skin left intact, "almost no peptide or copper permeated" [17]. No study of injected GHK-Cu in people could be found.

BPC-157: many rat studies, no controlled human result

Animal data In rats with a fully cut Achilles tendon, treated tendons withstood more force over 14 days, and the animals moved better than those given salt water [18]. Nearly all such work comes from one group in Zagreb [19].

Systematic review A 2025 review sifted 544 articles and kept 36. Only one of them involved patients, and the authors found no usable human data [20].

Case series One clinic reached 16 of 17 patients injected in the knee by telephone. Twelve had received BPC-157 alone, and 11 of those said they had improved markedly [21]. A second report in 12 women with a painful bladder condition also lacked a comparison group [22]. Neither design can separate an effect from chance or time.

Registered trials None of the registered trials of BPC-157 has posted a result [23].

TB-500: animal and cell work only

Animal data Apart from the tendon study above, the key comparison is from 2003. In mice aged 26 months, an uncapped version of the seven-part peptide healed skin about as well as the complete protein [24]. That peptide is not the capped fragment sold as TB-500.

No human data The FDA states that it found no data on people taking this fragment [25]. Of 20 registered trials in the field, 19 test the complete protein thymosin β4. The one entry naming TB-500 calls itself a fictional example [26].

Parent protein, phase 3 The two largest trials of that complete protein, in 601 and 700 people with dry eyes, each failed on both main questions [27], [28]. They tested a different molecule from TB-500.

KPV: the ingredient only KLOW contains

Animal data Mice given KPV in their drinking water developed milder bowel inflammation in two models where chemicals do the damage. Neither model reproduces ulcerative colitis or Crohn's disease as they occur in patients [12].

Animal data Rabbit corneas were grazed and treated with drops. After 60 hours, all 8 corneas treated with KPV had grown their surface layer back completely, and not one in the dummy group had [29].

In vitro Across donated human skin, the amount of KPV that crossed on its own stayed below the detection limit of 0.01 µg/ml [30].

No human data A registry search found no study of KPV in people under six search terms [31]. The FDA found no data on people taking it by any route [9].

How far the numbers can be compared

The results above come from different species, models, routes, doses and durations. They cannot be added up into an expected result for GLOW, or for KLOW, and the difference between them cannot be read off either. A mixture can behave differently from its parts, and in the one rat study that tested a combination, it added nothing [13].

Doses used in the studies

The doses below are simply what the cited studies gave, listed so that the results can be understood. They are not advice on how to use anything.

StudySubstanceModelDoseRouteDurationRef
Biçer 2026, tendon healing versus TB-500BPC-157Rat, about 330 g10 µg/kg per dayIntraperitoneal4 weeks[13]
Biçer 2026, Achilles tendonTB-500Rat60 µg/kg per dayInto the belly4 weeks[13]
Staresinic 2003, transected Achilles tendonBPC-157Rat10 µg/kg, 10 ng/kg or 10 pg/kgIntraperitonealDaily to 14 days[18]
Lee 2024, interstitial cystitis pilotBPC-157Human, 12 women10 mg in totalInjection at cystoscopySingle procedure[22]
Bishop 1992, leg ulcersGHK-CuHumanCopper tripeptide cream at 0.4 per centTopicalLength of the trial[14]
Canapp 2003, ischaemic woundsGHK-CuRatA 2 per cent copper tripeptide gelTopical13 days, once daily[16]
Bonfiglio 2006, corneaKPVRabbit1, 5 or 10 mg/ml, 30 µl per drop, two drops four times dailyTopical eye drops4 days[29]
Dalmasso 2008, bowel inflammationKPVMouseIn the drinking water; very low concentrations in the dishBy mouthThroughout the induced inflammation[12]

Each row tested one ingredient on its own. No study testing any amount of GLOW or KLOW could be found, and the milligram figures in the blend directory describe products, not doses.

Safety

No safety study of either blend could be found. For the ingredients, what is documented is short, and most of it describes gaps rather than findings.

  • GHK-Cu. The only formal safety assessment covers cosmetics at the concentrations used in 2014, usually under 10 ppm [32]. For injection, the FDA names a possible immune reaction "due to the potential for aggregation and peptide-related impurities" [25].
  • GHK-Cu reports. An FDA database query returned two serious reports, one of them anaphylactic shock and the other naming a lymphatic malignancy. In both, several peptides had been taken together [33]. Spontaneous reports never establish cause.
  • Copper. GHK-Cu is about 15.8 per cent copper by mass [1]. Europe's food safety authority set 5 mg a day as the copper limit for adults, a figure that describes swallowing, not injecting [34].
  • BPC-157. There is no controlled body of safety data in people. The FDA writes that it "lacks sufficient information to know whether the drug would cause harm when administered to humans" [25].
  • BPC-157 open questions. No study of whether it can cause cancer or damage genetic material could be found. Vessel growth also feeds solid tumours, and no published study has looked at that risk [4], [5].
  • TB-500. No data from people could be found. The FDA names immune reactions and impurities as risks [25]. A university racing laboratory reported that most products labelled TB-500 held no proteins, peptides or amino acids at all [35].
  • KPV. No safety testing in any species could be found. The FDA notes that antibodies against KPV might also switch off the body's own alpha-MSH [9].
  • KPV dose response. In mice, middle doses worked better than high ones, a bell-shaped pattern [36].

A 2026 sports medicine review notes that solid human safety data on these peptides are scarce and that serious harm to patients is possible [37]. Adding KPV adds a fourth ingredient without safety data, and no study of how the four behave together could be found.

None of the four ingredients is approved as a medicine in any market checked, and neither blend is. GHK-Cu is also a listed cosmetic ingredient, which does not cover injection [32]. Australia names BPC-157 and TB-500 in its Poisons Standard, which bans possession without permission [38], [39]. In sport, BPC-157 is named in class S0 and TB-500 in section S2.3, in the stricter of the two categories [40]. KPV falls under the S0 wording without being named, and injectable GHK-Cu fits that wording too [40]. The ingredient pages were checked on 6 and 7 September 2026.

GLOW Peptide Blend

  • GHK-CuCosmetic ingredient · WADA status: Not established (S0)
  • BPC-157Research chemical · WADA status: Prohibited (S0)
  • TB-500Research chemical · WADA status: Prohibited (S2.3)

Legal status applies per component

KLOW (80 mg Blend)

  • GHK-CuCosmetic ingredient · WADA status: Not established (S0)
  • BPC-157Research chemical · WADA status: Prohibited (S0)
  • TB-500Research chemical · WADA status: Prohibited (S2.3)
  • KPVResearch chemical · WADA status: Prohibited (S0)

Legal status applies per component

Used together?

Both products are already mixtures, so the usual question turns inward. The myPeptides blend directory lists the GLOW Peptide Blend as GHK-Cu 50 mg, BPC-157 10 mg and TB-500 10 mg. It lists KLOW (80 mg Blend) with the same three and KPV 10 mg. These are product figures from the directory, not doses.

The directory notes for both that none of the components is approved as an injectable medicine. KLOW contains all of GLOW, so the one compositional difference is KPV.

What is known about combining the ingredients is thin:

  • BPC-157 with TB-500. The one rat study that gave both alone and together found no advantage in combining them [13]. No study of that combination in people could be found.
  • A copper peptide in a mixture. An open study in 1000 patients with hair loss used a formulation holding Copper Tripeptide-1, thymosin β4 and five growth factors. It had no control group, and thymosin β4 is not TB-500 [41].
  • KPV with the others. No study pairing KPV with GHK-Cu, BPC-157 or TB-500 could be found.
  • Reports from real-world use. Both serious FDA reports for GHK-Cu involved several peptides taken together [33].

No study of how the four peptides affect each other in one vial or in the body could be found.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between GLOW and KLOW?

GLOW combines three peptides: GHK-Cu, BPC-157 and TB-500. KLOW contains the same three plus a fourth, KPV. That single ingredient is the whole difference in composition. No study comparing the two blends could be found, so any difference in effect is unknown.

Which is better, GLOW or KLOW?

No study answers that. No test of either blend and no comparison of the two could be found. The ingredients were studied one at a time in different species, models and routes. Their results cannot be ranked or added up into a verdict on either mixture.

Is GLOW or KLOW safer?

No safety data on either blend could be found. GHK-Cu has one cosmetic safety assessment that does not cover injection. BPC-157 and TB-500 have no controlled human safety data, and no safety testing of KPV in any species could be found. KLOW adds that fourth ingredient without safety data, and no study of what that means in practice could be found.

Can GLOW and KLOW be taken together?

No study of either mixture, alone or with anything else, could be found. KLOW already contains every ingredient of GLOW. The only study that combined two of the ingredients, BPC-157 and TB-500 in rats, found no advantage in combining them.

What are the claimed benefits of KLOW vs GLOW peptide?

No study measuring a benefit of either blend could be found. What exists is research on each ingredient. It covers two negative GHK-Cu skin trials, rat tendon studies of BPC-157 and TB-500, and KPV work in animal bowels and corneas. None of that was done with the mixtures.

What does KPV add to the KLOW blend?

KPV is a fragment of three building blocks from the hormone alpha-MSH. In mouse immune cells it kept the inflammation switch NF-κB out of the nucleus. It does not dock onto the receptors of its parent hormone. No study that gave it to a person could be found.

Neither blend and none of its four ingredients is approved as a medicine anywhere. GHK-Cu is also a listed cosmetic ingredient, which does not extend to injection. Australia restricts possession of BPC-157 and TB-500 by name, and the United States lists all four ingredients among substances with possible safety risks.

Are GLOW and KLOW banned in sport?

Yes, in practice both are. BPC-157 is named in class S0 of the 2026 Prohibited List and TB-500 in section S2.3, so each blend contains at least two banned substances. KPV falls under the S0 wording without being named, and injectable GHK-Cu fits that wording too.

Has anyone studied the GLOW or KLOW blend?

No study of either mixture could be found in the published record reviewed for this page. The names GLOW and KLOW do not appear in any of the studies cited on the four ingredient pages. They are product names, not the names of tested preparations.

Sources

Four original titles below state a treatment effect. They are replaced by a neutral description and marked as such; authors, year, journal, volume, pages and identifiers are unchanged.

  1. PubChem. Compounds CID 71587328 (Copper Tripeptide-1) and CID 73587 (glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine). Retrieved 7 September 2026. The copper share of 15.8 per cent by mass is calculated from the formula mass of 402.92 g/mol and the atomic mass of copper. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/71587328
  2. Maquart FX, Pickart L, Laurent M et al. (1988). Stimulation of collagen synthesis in fibroblast cultures by the tripeptide-copper complex glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine-Cu2+. FEBS Letters 238(2):343-346. PMID 3169264. DOI 10.1016/0014-5793(88)80509-x
  3. Li H, Toh PZ, Tan JY et al. (2016). Selected biomarkers revealed potential skin toxicity caused by certain copper compounds. Scientific Reports 6:37664. PMID 27892491. DOI 10.1038/srep37664
  4. McGuire FP, Martinez R, Lenz A, Skinner L, Cushman DM. (2025). Regeneration or risk? A narrative review of BPC-157 for musculoskeletal healing. Current Reviews in Musculoskeletal Medicine 18(12):611-619. PMID 40789979. DOI 10.1007/s12178-025-09990-7
  5. Hsieh MJ, Liu HT, Wang CN, et al. (2017). Therapeutic potential of pro-angiogenic BPC157 is associated with VEGFR2 activation and up-regulation. Journal of Molecular Medicine 95(3):323-333. PMID 27847966. DOI 10.1007/s00109-016-1488-y
  6. PubChem. Compound CID 62707662, TB-500; CAS 885340-08-9, UNII QHK6Z47GTG, C38H68N10O14, 889.0 g/mol, InChIKey ADKDNDYYIZUVCZ-ZQNQAVPYSA-N. Retrieved 6 September 2026. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/62707662
  7. Sosne G, Qiu P, Goldstein AL, Wheater M (2010). Biological activities of thymosin beta4 defined by active sites in short peptide sequences. FASEB Journal 24(7):2144-2151. PMID 20179146. DOI 10.1096/fj.09-142307
  8. Rahaman KA, Muresan AR, Min H, Son J, Han HS, Kang MJ, Kwon OS (2024). Simultaneous quantification of TB-500 and its metabolites in in-vitro experiments and rats by UHPLC-Q-Exactive orbitrap MS/MS and their screening by wound healing activities in-vitro. Journal of Chromatography B 1235:124033. PMID 38382158. DOI 10.1016/j.jchromb.2024.124033
  9. US Food and Drug Administration. Briefing document, Evaluation of KPV-related Bulk Drug Substances (KPV free base and KPV acetate) for Inclusion on the 503A Bulk Drug Substances List. 12 May 2026, 31 pages. https://www.fda.gov/media/193346/download
  10. Mandrika I, Muceniece R, Wikberg JE (2001). Effects of melanocortin peptides on lipopolysaccharide/interferon-gamma-induced NF-κB DNA binding and nitric oxide production in macrophage-like RAW 264.7 cells. Biochemical Pharmacology 61(5):613-621. PMID 11239505. DOI 10.1016/s0006-2952(00)00583-9
  11. Getting SJ, Schiöth HB, Perretti M (2003). Dissection of the anti-inflammatory effect of the core and C-terminal (KPV) alpha-melanocyte-stimulating hormone peptides. Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics 306(2):631-637. PMID 12750433. DOI 10.1124/jpet.103.051623
  12. Dalmasso G et al. (2008). PepT1-mediated uptake of the tripeptide KPV in models of intestinal inflammation (title replaced by a neutral description). Gastroenterology 134(1):166-178. PMID 18061177. DOI 10.1053/j.gastro.2007.10.026
  13. Biçer O, Adanir O, Güleryüz Y, et al. (2026). Effects of BPC-157 and TB-500 on Achilles tendon healing in rats: a histopathological and biomechanical study. Joint Diseases and Related Surgery 37(3):822-837. PMID 42542926. DOI 10.52312/jdrs.2026.2951
  14. Bishop JB, Phillips LG, Mustoe TA et al. (1992). A prospective randomized evaluator-blinded trial of two potential wound healing agents for the treatment of venous stasis ulcers. Journal of Vascular Surgery 16(2):251-257. PMID 1495150. DOI 10.1067/mva.1992.37086
  15. Miller TR, Wagner JD, Baack BR, Eisbach KJ (2006). Effects of topical copper tripeptide complex on CO2 laser-resurfaced skin. Archives of Facial Plastic Surgery 8(4):252-259. PMID 16847171. DOI 10.1001/archfaci.8.4.252
  16. Canapp SO, Farese JP, Schultz GS et al. (2003). The effect of topical tripeptide-copper complex on healing of ischemic open wounds. Veterinary Surgery 32(6):515-523. PMID 14648529. DOI 10.1111/j.1532-950x.2003.00515.x
  17. Li H, Low YS, Chong HP et al. (2015). Microneedle-mediated delivery of copper peptide through skin. Pharmaceutical Research 32(8):2678-2689. PMID 25690343. DOI 10.1007/s11095-015-1652-z
  18. Staresinic M, Sebecic B, Patrlj L, et al. (2003). Gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 in the transected rat Achilles tendon and in cultured tendon cells (title replaced by a neutral description). Journal of Orthopaedic Research 21(6):976-983. PMID 14554208. DOI 10.1016/S0736-0266(03)00110-4
  19. Whitehouse M. (2025). Concerning BPC-157, a natural pentadecapeptide, that acts as a cytoprotectant and is believed to protect the gastro-intestinal tract. Inflammopharmacology 33(8):4879-4881. PMID 40759852. DOI 10.1007/s10787-025-01882-z
  20. Vasireddi N, Hahamyan H, Salata MJ, et al. (2025). Emerging use of BPC-157 in orthopaedic sports medicine: a systematic review. HSS Journal 21(4):485-495. PMID 40756949. DOI 10.1177/15563316251355551
  21. Lee E, Padgett B. (2021). Intra-articular injection of BPC 157 for multiple types of knee pain. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 27(4):8-13. PMID 34324435
  22. Lee E, Walker C, Ayadi B. (2024). Effect of BPC-157 on symptoms in patients with interstitial cystitis: a pilot study. Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine 30(10):12-17. PMID 39325560
  23. ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Count query across six term variants for BPC-157, run 6 September 2026. Three registered studies are counted; a fourth entry is excluded because its sponsor also filed self-declared mock records. "PL 14736" and "PL14736" return zero records. https://clinicaltrials.gov/search?term=BPC-157
  24. Philp D, Badamchian M, Scheremeta B, Nguyen M, Goldstein AL, Kleinman HK (2003). Thymosin beta 4 and a synthetic peptide containing its actin-binding domain in dermal wound models in db/db diabetic mice and in aged mice (title replaced by a neutral description). Wound Repair and Regeneration 11(1):19-24. PMID 12581423. DOI 10.1046/j.1524-475x.2003.11105.x
  25. US Food and Drug Administration. Certain bulk drug substances for use in compounding that may present significant safety risks. Content current as of 22 April 2026. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/human-drug-compounding/certain-bulk-drug-substances-use-compounding-may-present-significant-safety-risks
  26. ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Registry search on 6 September 2026 using nine term variants, returning 20 distinct studies, of which 19 concern full-length thymosin β4; record NCT07487363 ("TBRIDGE-CV") states in its own brief summary: "This fictional study is an example of a ClinicalTrials.gov-style record." https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07487363
  27. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT02974907, ARISE-2, RGN-259 in dry eye disease, phase 3, n = 601; results section, both co-primary endpoints. Retrieved 6 September 2026. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT02974907
  28. ClinicalTrials.gov. NCT03937882, ARISE-3, RGN-259 in dry eye disease, phase 3, n = 700; results section, both co-primary endpoints. Retrieved 6 September 2026. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03937882
  29. Bonfiglio V et al. (2006). Effects of the COOH-terminal tripeptide alpha-MSH(11-13) on corneal epithelial wound healing: role of nitric oxide. Experimental Eye Research 83(6):1366-1372. PMID 16965771. DOI 10.1016/j.exer.2006.07.014
  30. Pawar K et al. (2017). Transdermal iontophoretic delivery of lysine-proline-valine (KPV) peptide across microporated human skin. Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 106(7):1814-1820. PMID 28343991. DOI 10.1016/j.xphs.2017.03.017
  31. ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Queries for "KPV", "KPV peptide", "CKPV", "Lys-Pro-Val", "lysine-proline-valine" and "alpha-MSH 11-13"; no study of the substance identified. AP1189 (NCT05604885) and PL-8177 (NCT05466890) recorded in the same query as separate molecules. Retrieved 6 September 2026. https://clinicaltrials.gov/
  32. Cosmetic Ingredient Review. Safety Assessment of Tripeptide-1, Hexapeptide-12, their Metal Salts and Fatty Acyl Derivatives, and Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-7 as Used in Cosmetics. Final report released 30 June 2014; journal version International Journal of Toxicology 2018;37(3_suppl). DOI 10.1177/1091581818807863
  33. openFDA. Drugs@FDA, the drug label database and the adverse event reporting system, queried 7 September 2026. No approved product for prezatide; 390 label entries mentioning copper tripeptide, 20 of them naming it as an active ingredient; two serious adverse event reports for GHK-Cu, both involving several peptides taken together.
  34. EFSA Scientific Committee (2023). Re-evaluation of the existing health-based guidance values for copper. EFSA Journal 21(1):7728. DOI 10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7728
  35. Racing Medication and Testing Consortium. Thymosin β4 bulletin, version 2.0 (2013); findings of the Kenneth L. Maddy Equine Analytical Laboratory, University of California-Davis, and ARCI classification advice. Retrieved 6 September 2026. https://rmtcnet.com/wp-content/uploads/2013-07-TB-500-Bulletin-v-2.0-Final.pdf
  36. Hiltz ME et al. (1991). Anti-inflammatory activity of alpha-MSH(11-13) analogs: influences of alteration in stereochemistry. Peptides 12(4):767-771. PMID 1788140. DOI 10.1016/0196-9781(91)90131-8
  37. Mendias CL, Awan TM. (2026). Safety and efficacy of approved and unapproved peptide therapies for musculoskeletal injuries and athletic performance. Sports Medicine 56(8):1921-1935. PMID 41966639. DOI 10.1007/s40279-026-02437-0
  38. Therapeutic Goods (Poisons Standard—June 2024) Instrument 2024. Authorised version F2024L00589, signed 28 May 2024, effective 1 June 2024. Schedule 4 entry and Appendix D, clause 5, item 5. https://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/aus227554.pdf
  39. Therapeutic Goods (Poisons Standard—June 2026) Instrument 2026, authorised version F2026L00633, registered 28 May 2026, in force 1 June 2026; Schedule 4 entries "# TB-500." and "# THYMOSIN BETA 4 (THYMOSIN β4)." with Appendix D clause 5 items 35 and 36. The same two entries appear in the June 2024 instrument F2024L00589 as items 34 and 35. Full text of both extracted 6 September 2026.
  40. World Anti-Doping Agency. The 2026 Prohibited List, International Standard; sections S0 and S2.3 reviewed in full. Wording verified 6 September 2026 from the official promulgation, BGBl. III Nr. 219/2025, issued 30 December 2025. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list
  41. Kapoor R, Shome D (2018). Open pilot study of intradermal injections of a growth factor formulation for hair, without a control group (title replaced by a neutral description). Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy 20(6):369-379. PMID 29482481. DOI 10.1080/14764172.2018.1439965

Further reading

Last reviewed: September 2026

Take myPeptides with you

Track doses, plans and progress on your phone — end-to-end encrypted.

Open in app App Store Join the beta

This article is for informational purposes only and does not replace medical advice. myPeptides gives no dosing recommendations.