GHK-Cu: what the studies show, status and safety
Summary
GHK-Cu is a copper complex of a peptide the body makes. It leads a double life. As the cosmetic ingredient Copper Tripeptide-1 it is listed and was judged safe in 2014 at then-usual levels. As a medicine it is approved nowhere. The injectable form is on an FDA risk list. Only two controlled human trials exist. Both missed their targets.
Key findings at a glance
- Two controlled human trials, both negative. In 86 patients with venous leg ulcers, a copper tripeptide cream at 0.4 per cent did no better than a dummy cream [1]. In 13 patients treated after laser resurfacing, no objective measure improved [2].
- One formal safety assessment exists, and it covers creams only. An expert panel judged the ingredient safe in 2014 in the concentrations then in use. The report puts those at under 10 ppm, or 0.001 per cent [3].
- Injectable GHK-Cu is named as a possible risk. The FDA lists it with the wording that it "may pose risk for immunogenicity due to the potential for aggregation and peptide-related impurities" [4].
- No clean trial of GHK-Cu on its own has ever run. A registry entry claims a phase 2 study in 60 healthy adults, but its sponsor filed further entries whose own summaries call them mock or fictional example records, so it is not counted here [5].
- Almost nothing crosses intact skin. In donated human skin, "almost no peptide or copper permeated through intact human skin". Measurable amounts appeared only after the skin was pre-treated with tiny needles [6].
- The molecule is roughly 15.8 per cent copper by mass. That is about 158 mg of copper per gram, calculated from the formula [7]. Europe's food safety authority set a daily copper limit of 5 mg for adults, a figure that applies to swallowing and not to injecting [8].
- The most-cited reviews come from one company. Loren Pickart described the peptide in 1973 and later founded Skin Biology, which sells copper peptide cosmetics. Two of those review papers state that the authors declare no conflict of interest [9].
What it is
GHK-Cu is not an invented drug molecule. Loren Pickart and M. M. Thaler described GHK in 1973 as an activity in human blood serum that kept normal liver cells alive longer [10]. The three-part sequence glycine, histidine and lysine was confirmed four years later [11].
The same triplet also sits inside type I collagen, the main structural protein of skin. That led to the idea that injury releases it from the tissue itself [12].
Commercially the substance took two paths. In the 1990s ProCyte Corporation tested a copper acetate salt of it as a wound treatment under the name Iamin, and never obtained approval [13]. In parallel it settled into cosmetics as Copper Tripeptide-1, a listed ingredient with a skin conditioning function [14].
Quick facts
| Field | Value | Ref |
|---|---|---|
| Common name | GHK-Cu, also called copper peptide | [7] |
| Cosmetic name | Copper Tripeptide-1; the copper-free form is Tripeptide-1 | [14] |
| Class | Copper complex of a peptide the body makes itself | [7] |
| Sequence | Gly-His-Lys, bound to one copper ion | [7] |
| Formula and mass | C14H23CuN6O4+, 402.92 g/mol; copper-free GHK 340.38 g/mol | [7] |
| Copper share | About 15.8 per cent by mass, roughly 158 mg per gram, calculated | [7] |
| How long it lasts in people | Never measured; in rats it broke down fast after injection | [15] |
| Status as a cosmetic ingredient | Listed worldwide, assessed in 2014 | [3], [14] |
| Status as a medicine | Approved nowhere; injectable form on an FDA risk list | [4] |
| Discoverer | Loren Pickart, 1973 | [10] |
| CAS registry number | 89030-95-5; copper-free GHK 49557-75-7 | [7] |
| PubChem CID | 71587328; copper-free GHK 73587 | [7] |
| UNII | 6BJQ43T1I9; copper-free GHK 39TG2H631E | [7] |
| Cosmetic database reference | 55687 | [14] |
Two look-alikes cause most of the confusion. Tripeptide-1 is the same peptide without copper, and Palmitoyl Tripeptide-1 is a fatty-acid version sold in trade materials such as Matrixyl 3000 [3]. Neither is interchangeable with GHK-Cu.
How it works
No mechanism has been established in people. What follows comes from cells in dishes, from animals and from database work, and each point is a hypothesis rather than a finding.
- Collagen production in skin cells. In cultured human fibroblasts, collagen synthesis rose from about 10⁻¹² mol/l upwards, a millionth of a millionth of a mole per litre. It peaked at 10⁻⁹ mol/l, with no change in cell number [12].
- Sugar-protein scaffolding. The same cells made more sulphated glycosaminoglycans, mainly dermatan and heparan sulphate. The response was bell-shaped, peaking at 10⁻⁹ to 10⁻⁸ mol/l and fading again at higher concentrations [16].
- Enzymes that remodel tissue. In rat wound chambers, the peptide stretched out the expression of the enzyme MMP-9 and shifted the timing of MMP-2, while leaving interstitial collagenase alone [17].
- The bottom layer of the epidermis. In keratinocytes and skin models, copper-GHK raised integrin and p63 markers [18]. The same group later reported the same effects for copper-free GHK, which weakens the case that copper is what matters [19].
- A carrier for copper. In the test tube GHK competes with albumin for copper. At equal concentrations about 42 per cent of the copper sat on the peptide, but at concentrations found in blood only about 6 per cent sat on small molecules [20].
- A gene expression signature. A database comparison flagged GHK as a substance whose gene pattern runs opposite to that of lung tissue destroyed by emphysema. Cell experiments backed that up [21]. This generates a hypothesis. It measures no clinical outcome.
One caveat runs through all of it. Copper on its own is biologically active. A cell study of several copper compounds found markers of skin irritation, and noted that data on their skin toxicity are scant [22]. In most papers it is impossible to say whether the peptide, the copper or the complex did the work.
What the studies found
Two controlled trials in people have tested a GHK-copper preparation as such. Both missed their objective targets. Everything else in people is uncontrolled, very small, or tests a mixture of several substances at once.
Publication count from a PubMed review on 7 September 2026; the study counts come from the 2026 systematic review, which searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. Sources [5], [23].
Leg ulcers
Human RCT The largest controlled trial ever run compared three creams in patients with venous leg ulcers. It had 86 patients evaluable. Silver sulfadiazine at 1 per cent shrank the ulcers significantly more than the other two arms did.
Between the copper tripeptide cream at 0.4 per cent and the inert dummy cream, the paper reports plainly: "There was no difference between the latter two treatments." [1]
Skin after laser resurfacing
Human RCT Thirteen patients completed a randomised trial of a GHK-Cu skin care regime after CO2 laser resurfacing. Blinded raters and computer analysis assessed them over 12 weeks. Redness faded no faster.
The authors write that "objective evaluation found no significant improvement in wrinkles or overall skin quality". Only self-reported satisfaction was higher, at p = 0.04 [2]. This is the single hit in PubMed when GHK-Cu is filtered for controlled trials.
Hair
Human RCT, combination product In 45 men with pattern hair loss, six months of a daily solution raised the hair count by 52.6 in one group and 71.5 in the other. On placebo the rise was 9.6. Hair length and thickness did not differ.
The product was a complex of 5-aminolaevulinic acid and copper-free GHK. No share of the effect can therefore be pinned on GHK-Cu [24].
Observational An open study in 1000 patients reported less shedding in 83 per cent. It had no control group, and its formulation held five growth factors, thymosin beta-4 and Copper Tripeptide-1 together [25]. Four further case reports applied a copper peptide alongside topical finasteride [26]. Neither design can isolate a single ingredient.
Wound healing in animals
Animal data In rat wound chambers, repeated doses raised dry weight, DNA, protein, collagen and glycosaminoglycans in a concentration-dependent way. An inactive control tripeptide did nothing [27].
Animal data In rats with poorly supplied open wounds, the wound area shrank by 64.5 per cent under the active gel by day 13. Under the vehicle it shrank by 45.6 per cent, and with no treatment by 28.2 per cent [13].
Ischaemic open wounds in 24 rats, gel applied once daily for 13 days. This is an animal result and does not carry over to people. Source [13].
Animal data In 72 rats after cruciate ligament reconstruction, the joint was less lax and stiffer at six weeks in the lower-concentration group. By twelve weeks that difference had gone, and breaking load, gait and tissue structure never differed. The authors call the effect transient [28].
Lung, gut and muscle in animals
Animal data Four mouse studies point the same way. Two report calmer inflammation in lung injury caused by bacterial toxin [29], and protective effects in lung scarring caused by bleomycin [30].
Animal data Two further mouse studies report less inflammation and scarring in silicosis, with peroxiredoxin 6 proposed as the binding partner [31], and preserved gut barrier proteins in chemically induced colitis [32]. Each is a single finding from a single group.
Observational One study measured GHK in human blood. It found 133.0 ± 54.54 ng/ml in 11 healthy adults against 70.27 ± 38.87 ng/ml in 9 patients with COPD, at p = 0.009 [33]. That is a snapshot of a natural molecule, not a test of a treatment.
What a systematic review made of it
Systematic review A 2026 review searched PubMed, Embase and Cochrane CENTRAL. It included 20 studies: 18 preclinical and 2 randomised controlled.
The authors conclude that GHK-Cu shows "a reasonable biological basis for use as a regenerative agent in aesthetic medicine, supported by available preclinical data". The findings, they add, are "constrained by methodological variability and a limited number of well-designed clinical studies" [23].
Getting through skin
Ex vivo In donated human skin mounted in diffusion cells, a copper tripeptide solution gave a permeability coefficient of 2.43 ± 0.51 × 10⁻⁴ cm/h. In 48 hours, 136.2 ± 17.5 µg of copper per square centimetre crossed, and 82 to 97 µg per square centimetre stayed in the tissue [34].
That experiment used skin cut down to thin layers under saturating conditions, which is not how a cream is used.
Ex vivo A second study made the contrast explicit. Through skin pre-treated with tiny needles, 134 ± 12 nanomoles of peptide and 705 ± 84 nanomoles of copper crossed in nine hours. Through skin left intact, "almost no peptide or copper permeated" [6].
What is still unknown
- How the substance behaves in a human body. There is no published pharmacokinetics for any route, so its half-life, its spread and its availability are unknown [15].
- What injecting it does. No acute, repeat-dose, reproductive or cancer toxicology for the injected route was found in any species.
- Whether the immune system reacts to it. The concern the FDA names has been neither confirmed nor ruled out by any study [4].
- What repeated use does to the body's copper balance. No measurements of blood copper, caeruloplasmin or liver copper exist for heavy topical or injected use [8].
- Which part carries the effect. Where both were tested, copper-free GHK produced the same result as the complex [19].
Side effects and safety
There is one formal safety assessment, it covers creams at low concentrations, and it is the only such document that exists. For injection there is nothing at all.
- The cosmetic assessment. An expert panel concluded in 2014 that the ingredients reviewed "are safe in the present practices of use and concentration in cosmetics". The wording binds the verdict to the concentrations of the day, put at 1 to 30 ppm with under 10 ppm being usual [3].
- The data behind that verdict are partly borrowed. The panel leaned on "negative repeated dose toxicity, skin irritation and sensitization, and genotoxicity data". A good share of that came from trade materials containing palmitoyl tripeptide-1 rather than from GHK-Cu itself [3].
- Two serious spontaneous reports. A query of the FDA adverse event database on 7 September 2026 returned two reports for GHK-Cu, both serious and both from the United States. One describes anaphylactic shock, the other an adverse reaction and a lymphatic malignancy [35]. In both cases several peptides were taken together. Spontaneous reports never establish cause.
- The named risk for injection. The FDA states that injectable GHK-Cu "may pose risk for immunogenicity due to the potential for aggregation and peptide-related impurities. There are limited data in humans to inform safety-related considerations." [4]
- Copper on skin is not inert. A keratinocyte study of several copper compounds found that their potential to irritate skin "is often overlooked" and that data on their skin toxicity are scant [22].
- The complex is chemically reactive. Glutathione reduces the copper in the complex, and the peptide is described as a handy chelate for that reaction [36]. Reactivity cuts both ways: with vitamin C present, a copper peptide complex was shown to cut DNA and protein as early as 1983 [37].
- Purity is a known weak point. The 2014 report notes that commercial material is "approximately 95% pure, but often includes small amounts of mildly neurotoxic materials" [3]. No pharmacopoeia monograph exists, so injectable material has no recognised test standard.
- The copper limit was lowered. Europe's food safety authority concluded in 2023 that no copper is retained at an intake of 5 mg a day, and set an acceptable daily intake of 0.07 mg per kilogram of body weight. The earlier 10 mg a day "can no longer be considered an NOAEL" [8].
- That limit describes swallowing. The gut regulates how much copper is taken up from food. Injection removes that control entirely [8].
- An unanswered question from 2013. In its own minutes the panel noted that "some small peptides are potent stimulators of angiogenesis". This "might then be an issue" in people with undiagnosed skin cancer, it added. The final report dropped the point, and no experiment has since addressed it [38].
A 2025 formulation review sums up the state of knowledge for the cosmetic route. There is "a surprising absence of clinical studies", and published information on skin permeability, effectiveness and physical properties is "insufficient" [39].
Doses used in 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.
Almost every line describes a cell culture, an animal or a market survey of cosmetics. Nothing here transfers between routes, and no dose-finding study of injected GHK-Cu in people has ever been published.
| Study | Model | Concentration or dose | Route | Duration | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maquart 1988, collagen | Human fibroblasts | 10⁻¹² to 10⁻⁷ mol/l, peak at 10⁻⁹ mol/l | Added to the culture medium | Length of the culture | [12] |
| Wegrowski 1992, scaffolding sugars | Human fibroblasts | Peak at 10⁻⁹ to 10⁻⁸ mol/l, bell-shaped | Added to the culture medium | Length of the culture | [16] |
| Maquart 1993, wound chamber | Rat | A concentration series, not given in milligrams in the abstract | Into an implanted chamber | Sequential doses | [27] |
| Siméon 1999, remodelling enzymes | Rat | 2 mg per dose | Into the wound chamber | To day 22 | [17] |
| Canapp 2003, ischaemic wounds | Rat | A 2 per cent copper tripeptide gel | Topical | 13 days, once daily | [13] |
| Fu 2015, ligament repair | Rat | 0.3 mg/ml or 3 mg/ml | Into the joint | Weekly for 4 weeks | [28] |
| Bishop 1992, leg ulcers | Human | Copper tripeptide cream at 0.4 per cent | Topical | Length of the trial | [1] |
| Lee 2016, hair | Human | 100 mg/ml or 50 mg/ml of a complex with 5-aminolaevulinic acid | Topical | 6 months, once daily | [24] |
| Hostynek 2010, skin uptake | Donated human skin | 0.68 per cent aqueous copper as the diacetate | Topical, saturating | 48 hours | [34] |
| Li 2015, tiny needles | Donated human and pig skin | Given as nanomoles crossing, not as a concentration | Topical after needling | 9 hours | [6] |
| Cosmetic market survey 2014 | Human, market data | Usually under 10 ppm, or 0.001 per cent; survey range 0.0000001 to 0.002 per cent | Topical | Years of use possible | [3] |
Products sold today often sit well above the concentrations the 2014 assessment covered, and for those higher levels no independent safety assessment exists [3].
Development and approval status
From a serum activity in 1973 to today
- 1973Described as an activity in human serumPickart and Thaler, ref [10]
- 1988-1993The cell and animal findings that still carry the fieldCollagen, scaffolding sugars, rat wound chambers, refs [12], [16], [27]
- 1992The largest controlled human trial finds no difference to placebo86 patients with leg ulcers, ref [1]
- 2006A second controlled trial finds no objective improvement13 patients after laser resurfacing, ref [2]
- 2014Cosmetic expert panel judges the ingredient safe as then usedBound to concentrations under 10 ppm, ref [3]
- April 2026FDA page lists injectable GHK-Cu among possible serious safety risksImmunogenicity from aggregation and impurities, ref [4]
- 1973 — the peptide is described in human serum, and its sequence is confirmed four years later [10], [11].
- 1990s — a copper acetate salt is tested as a wound treatment and never reaches approval [13].
- 1992 and 2006 — the only two controlled human trials are published, and both miss their objective targets [1], [2].
- 2014 — a cosmetic expert panel assesses the ingredient and finds it safe as then used [3].
- April 2026 — the FDA page listing injectable GHK-Cu among raw substances that may present serious safety risks carries this version date. The entry sits in the section for nominations that were withdrawn, and the date the entry itself was added is not stated [4].
GHK-Cu is not on the list of raw substances that pharmacies in the United States may compound with under section 503A [40]. Its place in the withdrawn section of the risk list means the nomination was pulled, not that anything was found to be harmless [4].
| Market | As a cosmetic ingredient | As a medicine or injection | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Listed, assessed 2014 | Not approved; injectable form on a risk list | [3], [4], [35] |
| European Union | Listed, skin conditioning | Not approved | [14], [41] |
| Germany | Listed under EU rules | Not approved | [14], [41] |
| United Kingdom | Listed under inherited rules | Not approved | [41] |
| Australia | Below the generic copper threshold | Not approved | [42] |
| Canada | Not checked | Not approved | [43] |
| Japan | Not checked | Not approved | [41] |
The two columns are the whole point of this table. A listed cosmetic ingredient is registered, not approved, and the maker of the finished product carries the safety responsibility [14].
Status was checked on 7 September 2026. The entries for Canada and Japan rest on the absence of any approval worldwide rather than on a search of those national registers [41], [43].
Anti-doping
GHK-Cu is not printed on the 2026 Prohibited List by name. A full-text search of the list and of the monitoring programme found no mention of it [44]. That settles less than it seems.
Class S0 covers "any pharmacological substance ... with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use". Its examples are introduced with the words "including but not limited to" [44].
Injectable GHK-Cu fits that wording, because no authority anywhere has approved it. A cosmetic skin product is a different case, and no official clarification covers it.
The American college sports list does not name the substance either, and says openly that its list is neither complete nor exhaustive [45]. Anyone competing under testing rules should settle the question with their national anti-doping agency. More detail sits under peptides banned in sport.
Compared with related peptides
| Peptide | What it is | Human evidence | Regulatory position |
|---|---|---|---|
| GHK-Cu | Copper complex of a three-part peptide the body makes [7] | 2 controlled trials, both negative on objective measures [1], [2] | Listed cosmetic ingredient; not approved as a medicine [3], [4] |
| BPC-157 | A 15-part sequence derived from a stomach protein | No controlled trial published | Not approved; on the same FDA risk list [4]; named by WADA in class S0 [44] |
| TB-500 | A synthetic fragment related to thymosin beta-4 | No controlled trial published | Not approved; on the same FDA risk list [4] |
| KPV | The last three building blocks of a hormone | No registered study in people | Not approved; on the same FDA risk list [4] |
The three neighbouring rows summarise their own pages in this register, which carry the underlying references.
All four substances sit in the same withdrawn section of the FDA risk list. All four are sold for injection without any approval anywhere [4]. What sets GHK-Cu apart is that it has a second, entirely legitimate life as a cosmetic ingredient, which the other three do not.
That second life is also what makes it easy to misread. A cosmetic listing says nothing about injecting a substance. A sports medicine review from 2026 groups GHK-Cu with these same peptides and notes that rigorous human safety data are scarce and that serious harm to patients is possible [46].
Common misconceptions
- "GHK and GHK-Cu are the same thing." They are separate substances with separate registry numbers and masses [7]. The distinction matters, because the gene expression work most often quoted for GHK-Cu was done with the copper-free form [21], and copper-free GHK matched the complex in skin cells [19].
- "It is allowed in cosmetics, so it is an approved active ingredient." Cosmetics and medicines run on separate rule books. An ingredient is listed rather than approved, and the same molecule in a syringe is an unapproved medicine on a safety risk list [3], [4].
- "GHK-Cu is FDA-approved." No approved medicine containing it exists, and the agency's drug database returns nothing. The roughly 390 entries in the label database are product listings, not approvals [35]. The 2014 assessment came from an industry-funded expert panel, not from a regulator [3].
- "What holds for the cream holds for the syringe." The only safety assessment covers creams under 10 ppm [3]. Injection bypasses both the skin barrier, which the peptide barely crosses [6], and the gut control on copper uptake [8].
- "The reviews prove it works." The most-cited reviews come from the discoverer's own company, and two of them declare no conflict of interest [9]. Reviews are not primary evidence, and the systematic review of 2026 found 20 studies of which only 2 were randomised controlled [23].
- "The copper is harmless because copper is essential." Being essential and being safe are different things. The European limit was lowered in 2023 to 5 mg a day for adults, and GHK-Cu is roughly 15.8 per cent copper by mass [7], [8]. Nobody has measured what repeated injection does to that balance.
- "The hair studies prove a GHK-Cu effect." No published human hair study tested GHK-Cu on its own. One used copper-free GHK in a complex [24], one had no control group and five growth factors in the mix [25], and one applied finasteride at the same time [26].
Frequently asked questions
Is GHK-Cu approved by the FDA?
No. There is no FDA-approved medicine containing GHK-Cu, and a search of the agency's drug database returns nothing. The roughly 390 entries in the FDA label database are cosmetic and over-the-counter product listings, which is a registration and not an approval.
Why is GHK-Cu allowed in face cream but not in a syringe?
Cosmetics and medicines are governed by separate rule books. A cosmetic ingredient is listed rather than approved, and the maker of the finished product carries the safety responsibility. The same molecule in a syringe is a medicine, and no authority anywhere has cleared it for that use.
What did the human trials of GHK-Cu actually find?
Two controlled trials exist. In 86 patients with leg ulcers, a 0.4 per cent copper tripeptide cream did no better than a dummy cream. In 13 patients treated after laser resurfacing, nothing measurable improved, and only self-reported satisfaction was higher.
Is GHK-Cu the same thing as GHK?
No. GHK is the bare three-part peptide, listed in cosmetics as Tripeptide-1, and GHK-Cu is that peptide bound to a copper ion. They carry different registry numbers and different masses. Much of the gene research often quoted for GHK-Cu was in fact done with the copper-free form.
Does GHK-Cu get through the skin?
Barely, if at all. In donated human skin, almost no peptide and almost no copper crossed skin that was left intact. Measurable amounts only appeared once the skin had been pre-treated with tiny needles, which is not what happens when a cream is spread on.
Is GHK-Cu safe to inject?
Nobody knows, because it has never been studied. There is no published human pharmacokinetics, no toxicology for the injected route and no immune-response data. The FDA names aggregation and peptide-related impurities as a possible immune risk for injectable GHK-Cu.
How much copper is in GHK-Cu?
About 15.8 per cent by mass, which works out at roughly 158 mg of copper per gram of the substance. That is arithmetic from the chemical formula rather than a measurement. What matters is that nobody has ever measured the copper balance of people using it repeatedly.
Does GHK-Cu grow hair?
No published human study has tested GHK-Cu on its own for hair. The placebo-controlled trial in 45 men used a complex of 5-aminolaevulinic acid and copper-free GHK, and the 1000-patient study used a mixture of five growth factors without any control group.
Why are there so many review papers on GHK-Cu but so few trials?
Most of the widely cited reviews come from Loren Pickart, who described the peptide in 1973 and founded a company selling copper peptide cosmetics. Two of those papers state that the authors declare no conflict of interest. Reviews are not primary evidence.
Is GHK-Cu banned in sport?
It is not printed on the 2026 Prohibited List by name. Injectable GHK-Cu still fits the wording of class S0, which covers any drug-like substance no health authority has approved. A cosmetic skin product is a different case that has never been officially clarified.
Sources
- 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
- 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
- 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
- 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; GHK-Cu listed for injectable routes under substances nominated but withdrawn. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/human-drug-compounding/certain-bulk-drug-substances-use-compounding-may-present-significant-safety-risks
- ClinicalTrials.gov API v2. Queries for "GHK-Cu", "copper tripeptide", "glycyl-histidyl-lysine", "copper peptide" and "prezatide" on 7 September 2026. No verified trial of GHK-Cu on its own is registered. One entry, NCT07437586, claims a phase 2 study in 60 participants; its sponsor filed further entries whose own summaries call them a mock study, an example record or a fictional study (NCT07481734, NCT07437560, NCT07487363), so it is not counted here. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT07437586
- 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
- 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
- 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
- PubMed author affiliations and conflict of interest statements, checked 7 September 2026, for PMID 22666519, 25302294, 26236730, 28212278 and 29986520, all filed under Skin Biology, Research and Development Department, Bellevue, Washington. PMID 28212278 and 29986520 state: "The authors declare no conflict of interest."
- Pickart L, Thaler MM (1973). Tripeptide in human serum which prolongs survival of normal liver cells and stimulates growth in neoplastic liver. Nature New Biology 243(124):85-87. PMID 4349963
- Schlesinger DH, Pickart L, Thaler MM (1977). Growth-modulating serum tripeptide is glycyl-histidyl-lysine. Experientia 33(3):324-325. PMID 858356. DOI 10.1007/BF02002806
- 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
- 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
- EU cosmetic ingredient database entry for Copper Tripeptide-1, reference number 55687, CAS 89030-95-5, function skin conditioning. Secondary source: the European Commission database is no longer machine readable, and the entry was taken on 7 September 2026 from two independent ingredient databases that cite it.
- Endo T, Miyagi M, Ujiie A (1997). Simultaneous determination of glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine and its metabolite, L-histidyl-L-lysine, in rat plasma by high-performance liquid chromatography. Journal of Chromatography B 692(1):37-42. PMID 9187381. DOI 10.1016/s0378-4347(96)00460-4
- Wegrowski Y, Maquart FX, Borel JP (1992). Stimulation of sulfated glycosaminoglycan synthesis by the complex glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine-Cu2+. Life Sciences 51(13):1049-1056. PMID 1522753. DOI 10.1016/0024-3205(92)90504-i
- Siméon A, Emonard H, Hornebeck W, Maquart FX (1999). Expression and activation of matrix metalloproteinases in wounds: modulation by the tripeptide-copper complex glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine-Cu2+. Journal of Investigative Dermatology 112(6):957-964. PMID 10383745. DOI 10.1046/j.1523-1747.1999.00606.x
- Kang YA, Choi HR, Na JI et al. (2009). Copper-GHK increases integrin expression and p63 positivity by keratinocytes. Archives of Dermatological Research 301(4):301-306. PMID 19319546. DOI 10.1007/s00403-009-0942-x
- Choi HR, Kang YA, Ryoo SJ et al. (2012). Stem cell recovering effect of copper-free GHK in skin. Journal of Peptide Science 18(11):685-690. PMID 23019153. DOI 10.1002/psc.2455
- Lau SJ, Sarkar B (1981). The interaction of copper(II) and glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine, a growth-modulating tripeptide from plasma. Biochemical Journal 199(3):649-656. PMID 7340824. DOI 10.1042/bj1990649
- Campbell JD, McDonough JE, Zeskind JE et al. (2012). A gene expression signature of emphysema-related lung destruction and its reversal by the tripeptide GHK. Genome Medicine 4(8):67. PMID 22937864. DOI 10.1186/gm367
- 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
- Mokhtar J, Mohamad B, Haddad J et al. (2026). The regenerative potential of GHK-Cu in aesthetic medicine: a systematic review. Aesthetic Surgery Journal. PMID 42619529. DOI 10.1093/asj/sjag169
- Lee WJ, Sim HB, Jang YH et al. (2016). Efficacy of a complex of 5-aminolevulinic acid and glycyl-histidyl-lysine peptide on hair growth. Annals of Dermatology 28(4):438-443. PMID 27489425. DOI 10.5021/ad.2016.28.4.438
- Kapoor R, Shome D (2018). Intradermal injections of a hair growth factor formulation for enhancement of human hair regrowth: a first-in-man pilot clinical study. Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy 20(6):369-379. PMID 29482481. DOI 10.1080/14764172.2018.1439965
- Bertin ACJ, Vilarinho A, Junqueira ALA (2018). Fractional non-ablative laser-assisted drug delivery leads to improvement in male and female pattern hair loss. Journal of Cosmetic and Laser Therapy 20(7-8):391-394. PMID 29452017
- Maquart FX, Bellon G, Chaqour B et al. (1993). In vivo stimulation of connective tissue accumulation by the tripeptide-copper complex glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine-Cu2+ in rat experimental wounds. Journal of Clinical Investigation 92(5):2368-2376. PMID 8227353. DOI 10.1172/JCI116842
- Fu SC, Cheuk YC, Chiu WY et al. (2015). Tripeptide-copper complex GHK-Cu(II) transiently improved healing outcome in a rat model of ACL reconstruction. Journal of Orthopaedic Research 33(7):1024-1033. PMID 25731775. DOI 10.1002/jor.22831
- Park JR, Lee H, Kim SI, Yang SR (2016). The tri-peptide GHK-Cu complex ameliorates lipopolysaccharide-induced acute lung injury in mice. Oncotarget 7(36):58405-58417. PMID 27517151. DOI 10.18632/oncotarget.10499
- Zhou XM, Wang GL, Wang XB et al. (2020). Protective effects of GHK-Cu in bleomycin-induced pulmonary fibrosis. Life Sciences 240:117139. PMID 31809714. DOI 10.1016/j.lfs.2019.117139
- Bian Y, Deng M, Liu J et al. (2024). GHK-Cu attenuates silica-induced pulmonary inflammation and fibrosis. Redox Biology 74:103237. PMID 38879894. DOI 10.1016/j.redox.2024.103237
- Mao S, Wang Y, Li X et al. (2025). Exploring the beneficial effects of GHK-Cu on an experimental model of colitis. Frontiers in Pharmacology 16:1587448. PMID 40672369. DOI 10.3389/fphar.2025.1587448
- Deng M, Bian Y, Zhang Q et al. (2023). Glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine-Cu and skeletal muscle dysfunction in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Journal of Cachexia, Sarcopenia and Muscle 14(3):1310-1323. PMID 36905132. DOI 10.1002/jcsm.13213
- Hostynek JJ, Dreher F, Maibach HI (2010/2011). Human skin retention and penetration of a copper tripeptide in vitro as a function of skin layer. Inflammation Research 59(11):983-988. PMID 20703511 and PMID 20721598
- 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.
- Santoro A, Calvo JS, Peris-Díaz MD et al. (2021). Intermediate Cu(II)-thiolate species in the reduction of Cu(II)GHK by glutathione. Inorganic Chemistry 60(23):17755-17765. PMID 34781677
- Ueda J, Ozawa T, Miyazaki M, Fujiwara Y (1983). DNA- and protein-scission activities of ascorbate in the presence of copper ion and a copper-peptide complex. Journal of Biochemistry. PMID 6654857
- Cosmetic Ingredient Review. Draft and tentative reports on the peptide group, February to May 2014, and panel minutes of March 2013 recording the angiogenesis concern and a reported 1 per cent use level that the final report does not contain. https://www.cir-safety.org/
- Mortazavi SM, Mohammadi Vadoud SA, Moghimi HR (2025). Topically applied GHK as an anti-wrinkle peptide: advantages, problems and prospective. BioImpacts 15:30234. PMID 39963574
- US Food and Drug Administration. Bulk Drug Substances Used in Compounding Under Section 503A of the FD&C Act. Content current as of 14 May 2026; GHK-Cu is not among the six substances added by the final rule of February 2019. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/human-drug-compounding/bulk-drug-substances-used-compounding-under-section-503a-fdc-act
- Negative findings, checked 7 September 2026: no marketing authorisation for GHK-Cu or prezatide at the European Medicines Agency, and no monograph in the European, Japanese or United States pharmacopoeias. Not verified directly with each body.
- Therapeutic Goods (Poisons Standard), Australia, 2026 edition. Full text searched for "GHK", "glycyl", "copper tripeptide" and "tripeptide" on 7 September 2026 with no match. Schedule 6 carries a generic entry for copper compounds exempting preparations containing 5 per cent or less.
- Health Canada, Cosmetic Ingredient Hotlist. Retrieval failed on 7 September 2026; the Canadian position is unchecked.
- World Anti-Doping Agency. The 2026 Prohibited List and the 2026 Monitoring Programme; both searched on 7 September 2026 for "GHK", "copper", "tripeptide" and "Gly-His-Lys" with no match. Class S0 wording quoted as published.
- NCAA. Banned Substances 2026-27. Searched on 7 September 2026 with no match; the list states that it is "neither a complete nor exhaustive list".
- Mendias CL, Awan TM (2026). Safety and efficacy of approved and unapproved peptide therapies for musculoskeletal injuries and athletic performance. Sports Medicine. PMID 41966639
Cite this page
Every figure and every register search on this page was checked on 7 September 2026. The regulatory position of GHK-Cu differs by route and by product type, and it can change, so the version and the date matter as much as the text.
myPeptides Research & Editing. (2026). GHK-Cu: what the studies show, status and safety. Version 1.0, 7 September 2026. myPeptides Peptide Register. Retrieved from https://mypep.app/peptides/ghk-cu
How pages in this register are compiled and graded is described under methodology; the full register is at peptides.
| Version | Date | Note |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 7 September 2026 | Initial publication |