Livagen: what the studies show, status and safety
Summary
Livagen is a synthetic chain of four amino acids from a St Petersburg institute, sold as a liver peptide. No trial in people has ever been registered, and the liver findings behind that name sit in a patent that lapsed in 2022. Every published experiment comes from one research school. It is the one peptide of its series that never became a product anywhere.
Key findings at a glance
- No registered trial, anywhere. On 15 September 2026 the ClinicalTrials.gov registry held nothing at all under the name. The 25 records a sequence search brings back are nutrition and amino acid studies unrelated to this peptide, and a control query returned 752 studies, so the search itself worked [1].
- The only account of people sits in the inventor's patent. Example 7 describes 23 patients aged 32 to 53 with long-standing hepatitis. It names no randomisation, no blinding and no fixed endpoint, and it was never published [2].
- Not sold as a product, anywhere. The catalogue of its own institute lists seven peptides of this series and this is not one of them. The liver place there belongs to Ovagen [3], [4].
- The liver label is a table entry, not a result. In the group's own 2022 overview the row reads "Livagen (KEDA) −22.01 Hepatoprotector". Two further sequences in that table are labelled for the liver as well, Fuaget with the same single word and Ovagen as "Nephroprotector/Hepatoprotector" [5].
- Two calculations by the same group disagree. At the carrier LAT1 the peptide scored −22.01 in 2022 and −28.83 in 2023. Same molecule, a gap of 6.82 units [5], [6].
- One school, no outside replication. Europe PMC holds 23 records for the name and PubMed 19, and no laboratory outside that circle has repeated a single result [7].
- Trade vials hold 2,000 times the only documented pharmaceutical amount. The patent describes an ampoule of 10 µg. Sellers ship freeze-dried vials of 20 mg for research use only [2], [8].
What it is
Livagen is a laboratory-made peptide of four amino acids: lysine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid and alanine, written Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala or KEDA [9]. It comes from the St Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology, the group around Vladimir Khavinson [2].
It was not isolated from a liver. The group designed the sequence from an amino acid analysis of liver polypeptide preparations and then synthesised it [10]. Such an analysis counts building blocks; it does not reveal which sequences a mixture actually contains.
The words bioregulator, cytogen and ultrashort peptide run through this literature. They are house terms of that same institute, used by no pharmacopoeia and no regulator [11], [5].
One practical warning belongs here. In the chemical record the peptide can be found under the trade name only. Queries for the sequence or the short code fail, which is why some pages report no record [9].
Quick facts
| Field | Value | Ref |
|---|---|---|
| Chain | Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala, four amino acids | [9], [2] |
| Formula and mass | C18H31N5O9, 461.5 g/mol | [9] |
| Structure key | InChIKey IKVDKWACACMDLR-BJDJZHNGSA-N | [9] |
| Code in the literature | KEDA | [5] |
| Chemical record | PubChem CID 87919683, holding four synonyms | [9] |
| Registry number | CAS 433257-50-2, from that one synonym list only | [9] |
| Medical subject heading | Supplementary concept UID 67473185, mapped to oligopeptides | [12] |
| Code with the American regulator | None | [13] |
| Curated chemistry records | No ChEMBL entry, no DrugBank entry | [14] |
| Water-loving character | Calculated XLogP −7.7, polar surface 251 Ų | [9] |
| How long it lasts in the body | No published value, for any route or species | [6] |
| Registered studies in people | None | [1] |
| Approval status | Approved nowhere, for nothing | [3], [13] |
| Sold as | Vials of freeze-dried powder for research use only | [8] |
| Originating group | St Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology | [2] |
| Patent | Priority 2000, filed 2001, granted 2006, lapsed for non-payment in August 2022 | [2] |
How it works
Nobody knows. No target molecule has been identified, no measurement in a living person exists, and the peptide has never been watched entering a cell [15].
The account given by its makers runs as follows. Each step rests on evidence of its own, and the strength of that evidence differs sharply from step to step.
- Acting on genes. The peptide would reach the nucleus, settle on stretches of DNA and loosen tightly packed chromatin, so that switched-off genes could be read again [16]. No binding measurement and no uptake experiment has been published for it.
- Tissue specificity. In explant cultures each peptide of the series was said to stimulate growth in its own parent tissue, the liver in this case [11], [17]. That is a reading of how much tissue grew, not evidence of a target.
- Riding on transport proteins. Computer modelling only, twice, with different results [5], [6]. A score is the output of a scoring function, not a measured affinity and not a flow.
- Blocking enzymes that break down other peptides. In human serum in a dish it halved the activity of enkephalin-degrading enzymes at 20 µM, where Epitalon needed 500 µM [18]. That is a high concentration, and serum in a dish is not a body.
- Surviving the gut. Enzymes from rat small intestine did not break the peptide down at all, which is why an oral route is claimed [10]. Surviving digestion is not the same as being absorbed.
One physical fact sits awkwardly under all this. With a calculated XLogP of −7.7 and a polar surface of 251 Ų, the molecule is far too water-loving to cross a membrane on its own [9].
Docking scores for KEDA against four carrier proteins in the 2023 run by the originating group, tables 1, 3, 5 and 7. A more negative value means a better calculated fit, so the positive value at PEPT2 means none at all; the authors add that the one PEPT2 structure available to them does not allow a reliable assessment. Ranks among 26 peptides were 11, 17, 20 and 21. Source [6].
And the group set itself a threshold: a score below −15 marks likely transport at LAT1. The peptide clears that mark in both runs, but the two runs differ by 6.82 units for the same molecule [5], [6]. The 2023 paper explains the gap in a footnote of its own, saying it used several different shapes of the LAT1 binding site and a newer docking method [6]. That a year of better method moves the number by a quarter is the clearest measure of how soft these numbers are.
What the studies found
Cell cultures, liver explants, a handful of rat experiments and two computer models: that is the whole record. Europe PMC holds 23 entries for the name, PubMed 19, and not one reviewed study in people [7], [1].
Liver cells in a dish
Cell data Liver cells from rats aged one to 24 months made more protein after the peptide was added, and the effect was largest in cells from old animals [10]. The reviewed abstract gives no concentration and no group sizes. The patent version of the same work names 0.005 µg/ml over four hours [2].
The comparison inside that paper matters more than the result. Epitalon, a peptide of the same series, changed nothing in the same cultures [10]. These molecules are not interchangeable.
Liver explants
Animal data Pieces of liver from 10- to 11-day chicken embryos grew 24 per cent larger by day three at 20 ng/ml, out of a range from 2 to 400 ng/ml that was tested [2]. This is the only dose-response figure the substance has, and it describes a narrow window rather than a rising curve. It appears in the patent, not in a reviewed journal.
Digestive enzymes in rats
Animal data This is the only reviewed experiment in living animals that does not come from the patent. In a dish the peptide lowered the activity of one gut enzyme, glycyl-L-leucine dipeptidase, by 50 per cent [10].
After two weeks by mouth the direction depended on age. Digestive enzyme activity fell in young rats and rose in old ones, approaching the level of the young controls. The abstract names no amount and no statistics.
Chromatin in donated human cells
Cell data White blood cells from donors aged 75 to 88 were kept alive in a dish and the peptide was added. The papers report switched-on ribosomal genes and loosened, tightly packed chromatin [19], [20], [21].
One result cuts against the label. Five peptides of the series did the same thing in one experiment. That argues against a sharp tissue assignment at the level of chromatin [20].
A second one cuts against the series itself. In 2004 and 2006 the group reported loosening at the packed regions of chromosomes 1 and 9 [20], [21]. In 2023 it wrote that these peptides do not loosen that region at all [22]. Seventeen years apart, and never resolved.
An enzyme result and a blank
Cell data In human serum the peptide inhibited enkephalin-degrading enzymes with a half-inhibiting concentration of 20 µM, against 500 µM for Epitalon, and it was stronger than three established inhibitors [18].
The same paper reports a plain negative. In rat brain membranes there was no interaction with either of the two opioid receptor types tested [18].
The liver model behind the label
Animal data Rats were given carbon tetrachloride, a standard way to injure a liver, at 0.5 ml per 100 g of body weight daily for five days. One group received 1 µg of the peptide daily during that exposure, another for 15 days afterwards. The patent reports less tissue damage and blood values returning towards normal by day 20 [2].
This experiment is where the label Hepatoprotector ultimately comes from, and it has never appeared in a reviewed journal. In the group's own 2022 table the label rests on a reference to another review by the same authors. That review names animal models and work in dishes as its whole basis [5], [15].
Where it was not the strongest
Cell data In cells from people with a thickened heart muscle, three peptides were compared and Epithalon, not this one, was named the most effective [23].
Cell data In cells from people with hardened arteries, the same group concluded that the observed effect proves the peptide works for prevention [24]. That conclusion is drawn from chromosomes in a dish and does not follow from the data.
Cell data In a study of fragile sites on chromosomes, two peptides reduced the effect of metal salts. The result held up statistically only in the group of young people [25]. That is the opposite of what an ageing hypothesis would predict.
The one account of people
Everything ever said about this peptide working in people traces to a single document, and that document is not a study. Example 7 of the patent describes 23 patients aged 32 to 53 whose hepatitis had lasted 10 to 20 years, against 12 patients on conventional care [2].
The example names no amount of its own. It simply points at the range the application claims as its legal scope, a range spanning four orders of magnitude, which is the breadth a patent lawyer asks for and not a dose anybody chose and tested. The figures themselves are in the table further down.
Neither that example nor its Russian twin mentions randomisation, blinding, a placebo or an endpoint fixed in advance, and neither was ever peer reviewed [2]. A patent is examined for novelty and inventive step, never for benefit.
A review by the same circle in 2020 asserts that the peptide restored liver function in illness [15]. Its own abstract names animal models and work in dishes as the entire basis, so it adds a claim rather than evidence.
What is still unknown
- How the body handles it: no half-life, no absorption figure, no distribution and no excretion data, for any route or species [6].
- Whether it reaches a cell nucleus at all, which the whole gene account depends on [16].
- Whether the loosened chromatin seen in donated cells means anything in a living body [20].
- Whether a target molecule exists, since no receptor and no transport measurement has ever been reported [5], [6].
- What happens beyond six months in an animal, the longest exposure ever documented, and documented only in a patent [2].
Side effects and safety
No safety profile exists, and that is not a clean bill of health. There is no reviewed toxicology in any species, and the American adverse event database holds nothing for the name [13].
What has actually been observed
- No reports in the pharmacovigilance system. A substance that is neither approved nor prescribed produces no spontaneous reports, so an empty file says nothing about safety [13].
- The only toxicity figures sit in a patent. Mice were given 1 to 5 mg per kilogram once into a muscle. Rats received 1 µg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg daily for 90 days, and 1 µg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg or 1 mg/kg daily for six months. The reported outcome is no pathological changes [2].
- That is an assertion, not a finding. It was written by the applicant, never reviewed, never documented to good laboratory practice and never repeated by anyone else [2].
- It is not pharmacologically inert. A molecule that halves the activity of a gut enzyme and blocks serum peptidases at 20 µM is doing something [10], [18].
- Effects that reverse with age. In rats, digestive enzyme activity moved down in young animals and up in old ones [10]. A substance whose direction depends on the starting state is hard to monitor.
Because no reviewed study in people exists, no side effect in people has ever been recorded either [1].
What is missing
- No pharmacokinetics of any kind, and no dose-finding work: the patent claim spans four orders of magnitude [2], [6].
- No reproductive toxicology and no genotoxicity testing in the regulatory sense, which given the claimed action on gene activity is the serious gap [16].
- No immunogenicity testing, although the traded form is injected [8].
- No data on interactions, and in particular none on what the measured inhibition of peptidases means alongside other peptides [18].
- No pharmacopoeia monograph and no validated analysis, so traded material cannot be measured against anything [13], [14].
The injectable form carries risks of its own. Vials sold for research are made under no pharmaceutical quality system, so sterility, endotoxin content and true peptide content are unknown [8]. Injecting non-sterile material brings the usual risks of abscess, vein inflammation and blood-borne infection.
Doses used in studies
The figures below are simply what the cited experiments used, listed so that their results can be read. They are not advice on how to use anything, and most of them, including the one line that mentions people, come from patent examples rather than from reviewed studies.
Everything in the table is either a concentration in culture fluid or an amount given to an animal, with one exception. The last row is not a study dose at all. It is the range a patent application claimed as its legal scope, illustrated by an example that was never published, registered, randomised or blinded, and it must not be read as a dose for anyone. Livagen is approved in no country, and no dose-finding work of any kind has been carried out.
| Study | Model | Amount | Route | Duration | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Patent example 3, protein synthesis | Rat liver cells in a dish, 4, 8 and 18 months old | 0.005 µg/ml, that is 5 ng/ml | Added to the culture fluid | Once, over 4 hours | [2] |
| Patent example 4, liver explants | Liver pieces from 10- to 11-day chicken embryos | 2 to 400 ng/ml tested, effect at 20 ng/ml | Added to the culture fluid | 3 days | [2] |
| Patent example 5, toxic liver injury | Rats given carbon tetrachloride | 1 µg per animal, not per kilogram | Parenteral, route not specified | Daily, 5 or 15 days | [2] |
| Patent example 2, single-amount toxicity | Mice | 1 to 5 mg/kg, once | Into a muscle | Single administration | [2] |
| Patent example 2, repeated dosing | Rats | 1 µg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg and 3 mg/kg | Into a muscle | Daily, 90 days | [2] |
| Patent example 2, long-term dosing | Rats | 1 µg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg and 1 mg/kg | Into a muscle | Daily, 6 months | [2] |
| Kost 2003, enzyme inhibition | Human serum in a dish | Half-inhibiting concentration 20 µM | Added to the assay | — | [18] |
| Timofeeva 2005, digestive enzymes | Rats of different ages | Not stated in the abstract | By mouth | Daily, 2 weeks | [10] |
| Tbilisi chromatin papers | Donated human white blood cells | Not stated in any abstract read | Added to the culture fluid | Not stated | [19], [20], [21] |
| Khavinson 2021, range for the series | Cells in a dish, not specific to this peptide | 2 to 200 ng/ml | Added to the culture fluid | — | [16] |
| Patent example 7, the only account of people | 23 patients, hepatitis lasting 10 to 20 years; no randomisation, no blinding, never published | Not a tested dose: the patent claims protection for everything from 0.01 to 100 µg/kg, four orders of magnitude, and the example names no amount of its own | Into a muscle | Claimed for 10 to 40 days | [2] |
A concentration in culture fluid cannot be converted into an amount for a body, and neither can an animal figure. Twenty nanograms per millilitre in the fluid around a piece of chicken embryo liver says nothing about tissue levels in anything alive.
The distance between those laboratory figures and the ones circulating among users is wide enough to be worth stating, and none of the circulating ones rests on a study. Trade and overview pages name amounts from 100 µg to 2 mg a day, and one presents a course totalling 50 to 100 mg over ten days [26].
At 75 kg that last figure works out at roughly 67 to 133 µg per kilogram daily. That is at or beyond the upper edge of what the patent claimed, and between 500 and 1,000 times the amount given to the rats in the liver injury experiment above.
None of these schemes comes from the literature, because there is no literature they could be derived from. They also contradict each other by up to two orders of magnitude, which is what one would expect of numbers with no source.
Development and approval status
A patent, two dozen papers, no development programme
- 2000Patent priority filedThe St Petersburg institute claims the sequence Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala as a stimulator of liver cell activity
- 2001First papers, both on the liverExplant cultures assign the peptide to the liver; rat liver cells in a dish make more protein while Epitalon changes nothing
- 2002First chromatin paper in donated human cellsRibosomal genes switched on and packed chromatin loosened in cells from old donors
- 2005The only reviewed experiment in living animalsDigestive enzyme activity falls in young rats and rises in old ones after two weeks by mouth
- 2006Patent granted in the United StatesIts examples hold the only toxicology and the only account of people taking the substance, 23 patients
- 2007Patent assigned to a Russian companyTransfer of a property right; no trial, no filing and no product followed it
- 2022Patent lapses, first transport calculation appearsThe right expires for non-payment in August; a docking table scores the peptide at minus 22.01 and labels the row Hepatoprotector
- 2023Second calculation disagrees with the firstMinus 28.83 at the same carrier, and the chromatin group now reports no loosening of the region it once reported
- 15 September 2026Registers checkedNo approval anywhere, no registered trial, no regulator code, and no product on any market
There is no development programme behind Livagen. No sponsor has filed anything, and no phase of testing has begun [1].
The patent expired for non-payment of fees in August 2022 [2]. What remains is a thin line of laboratory papers and a vial sold for research.
| Market | Status | Note | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|
| United States | Not approved | No substance code, no label, no adverse event file; never put forward for pharmacy compounding | [13], [27] |
| European Union | Not approved | No authorisation and no trial; the agency register could not be read on the day of checking | [28] |
| Germany | Not approved | Neither a licensed medicine nor a listed doping substance; an unlicensed injectable may not be supplied | [29] |
| United Kingdom | Not approved | The register returned only a page shell, so the finding rests on every other register | [28] |
| Australia | Not approved | Absent from the Poisons Standard, which is not permission | [30] |
| Canada | Not approved | The medicines database returns nothing; a control query works | [31] |
| Switzerland | Not approved | No authorisation identified, and no register query was possible | [28] |
| Russia | Not approved | Not a medicine, and not sold as a supplement either; the liver place in the catalogue belongs to Ovagen | [3], [4] |
Two rows need care. The Australian entry means the substance was never scheduled, not that it may be used. Unapproved research peptides are handled there much as prescription substances are [30].
The Russian row sets this peptide apart from every sibling. Cartalax, Chonluten, Pinealon and Ovagen are sold there as capsules, and this one is not sold at all. No authority anywhere has assessed it in any form [3], [4].
All registers were checked on 15 September 2026. Where a register returned only a page shell, that is recorded as an unverified gap rather than a nil result [28].
Anti-doping
Livagen is banned at all times, in and out of competition. Category S0 of the 2026 Prohibited List covers "any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use" [32].
The name is not printed on the list, and that is not a gap. The clause names drugs "under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued", which describes an abandoned candidate with a lapsed patent exactly [32], [2]. Substances in this class are specified substances, which affects the sanction rather than the ban.
One detail is easy to miss. In much of the chromatin literature the damage being studied was caused by metal salts, cobalt among them, and the peptide was added afterwards to see what changed [25], [23]. Cobalt itself is printed on the list by name, in section S2.1.2, as an agent that activates hypoxia-inducible factor, and it is not a specified substance [32]. Of the two, the cobalt half would be the graver offence.
German anti-doping law works differently. Its annex names banned substances one by one, and a liver tetrapeptide appears nowhere in it. Possession is therefore not an offence under that provision [29]. The sporting ban is unaffected.
No published test for detecting it in a sample exists. Four ordinary amino acids are hard to tell apart from the products of normal protein digestion. With no pharmacokinetics, nobody knows what window to look in. Further detail is in the overview of peptides banned in sport.
Compared with related peptides
Eight of the 28 ultrashort peptides in table 2 of the 2022 overview by the originating group. A more negative value means a better calculated fit, and the same authors call a score below minus 15 the sign of likely transport. Livagen ranks tenth of 28 in the full table, which spells Cortagen as Korthagen. Source [5].
| Peptide | Relation to Livagen | What the checks behind this page found |
|---|---|---|
| Livagen | — | Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala, 461.5 g/mol; scored −22.01 in the 2022 LAT1 table, and no product exists on any market [9], [5], [3] |
| Ovagen | The three-part peptide that actually holds the liver place | Glu-Asp-Leu, covered by a separate patent filed in 2006; sold in Russia as capsules, and scored −28.27 in the same table [33], [4], [5] |
| Epitalon | Same series, one amino acid different in position and tail | Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly; changed nothing in the liver cell cultures where Livagen acted, and needed 25 times the concentration in the enzyme assay [10], [18] |
| Cortagen | Same series, assigned to the brain cortex | Ala-Glu-Asp-Pro; scored −12.11, the lowest value shown here, and is likewise sold as no product [5], [3] |
| Pinealon | Three-part peptide of the series, assigned to the pineal gland | Glu-Asp-Arg; scored −30.29, and is sold in Russia as capsules where Livagen is not [5], [3] |
| Cartalax | Three-part peptide of the series, assigned to cartilage | Ala-Glu-Asp; scored −26.65, and is likewise sold there as capsules [5], [3] |
| Chonluten | Peptide of the series assigned to lung and stomach lining | Glu-Asp-Gly; the best score in that table at −30.30 [5], [3] |
The comparison is not about strength. It shows where this peptide sits among its neighbours, and the answer is in the middle of their own table and outside their own catalogue.
Two rows matter especially. Ovagen took the liver place Livagen was patented for. Epitalon is the one that lost the only two head-to-head comparisons in a dish.
Common misconceptions
- "Livagen and Ovagen are the same liver peptide." They are different molecules. Livagen is the four-part Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala from a patent filed in 2000, Ovagen the three-part Glu-Asp-Leu from a patent filed in 2006 [2], [33]. Only Ovagen is sold [4].
- "Livagen is one of those Khavinson capsules." The catalogue lists seven peptides of this series and this is not among them [3]. Among the peptides of that programme, it is the one that never became a product.
- "There is no chemical record for it." There is: PubChem CID 87919683 [9]. Queries for the sequence, the code KEDA or the full chemical name fail, which is how the false blank arises.
- "The 23 hepatitis patients were a clinical trial." They are example 7 of a patent [2]. No publication, no registration, no randomisation, no blinding. A patent example is an assertion of industrial applicability, not evidence.
- "The Tbilisi papers are studies in people." They are cells in a dish. Blood was drawn from old donors, the white cells were cultured and the peptide was added to the fluid [19], [20]. Nobody received anything.
- "The formula is C19H33N5O9 and the mass 475.5." Wrong, and the correct values agree across three records: C18H31N5O9 and 461.5 g/mol, with the patent giving 461.48 without a counter-ion [9], [12], [2]. The false pair circulates on overview pages, alongside a protein synthesis figure that appears in no paper [34].
- "Hepatoprotector is a tested finding." It is a label in a table, backed by a review from the same group, which rests on animal models and cell work [5], [15]. Two other sequences in that table are labelled for the liver as well [5].
- "A patent held by a pharmaceutical company means a development programme." The right was transferred in 2007 and expired for non-payment in 2022 [2]. An expired patent with no filing, no trial and no product is the opposite of a programme.
Frequently asked questions
Has Livagen ever been tested in a clinical trial?
No. On 15 September 2026 the ClinicalTrials.gov registry returned nothing at all for the name. A search for the sequence returned 25 records, every one of them a nutrition or amino acid study with no connection to this peptide, while a control query returned 752 studies. The only account of people taking it is example 7 of a patent held by its inventor, covering 23 patients. That example was never published, registered, randomised or blinded.
What is Livagen made of?
Four amino acids: lysine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid and alanine, written Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala or KEDA. The chemical record gives the formula C18H31N5O9 and a mass of 461.5 g/mol. Widely circulated figures of C19H33N5O9 and 475.5 are wrong.
Why is Livagen called a liver peptide?
Because its makers assigned it to the liver. The sequence was designed from an amino acid analysis of liver preparations, and a table in the group's own 2022 overview labels the row Hepatoprotector. Two other sequences in that table carry a liver label too, and the liver experiments behind it sit in a patent rather than in a reviewed journal.
Is Livagen the same as Ovagen?
No. Livagen is the four-part peptide Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala and Ovagen is the three-part peptide Glu-Asp-Leu, covered by a different patent filed six years later. Only Ovagen holds the liver place in the Russian catalogue of these peptides. Livagen appears there not at all.
Is Livagen approved as a medicine anywhere?
No, in no country. There is no authorisation in the United States, the European Union, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Switzerland or Russia. Unlike its sibling peptides it is not even sold as a Russian supplement, so no authority anywhere has assessed it in any form.
What did the animal studies of Livagen find?
Little that was published and checked. Liver cells from rats made more protein in a dish, liver pieces from chicken embryos grew 24 per cent larger at one concentration, and after two weeks by mouth digestive enzyme activity fell in young rats and rose in old ones. The first two figures come from the patent, not from a reviewed paper.
Why do the transport calculations for Livagen disagree with each other?
Because the same group ran them twice and got different numbers. At the carrier LAT1 the peptide scored −22.01 in the 2022 table and −28.83 in the 2023 one, a gap of 6.82 units for the same molecule. Both runs are computer models with no transport measurement behind them.
What are the side effects of Livagen?
Unknown, because nobody has looked. There is no reviewed toxicology in any species and no entry in the American adverse event database. The only toxicity figures sit in the inventor's patent, which reports no changes in rats dosed for six months, and no laboratory outside that circle has checked them.
Is Livagen banned in sport?
Yes, at all times, in and out of competition. Category S0 of the 2026 Prohibited List covers any drug-like substance that no health authority has approved for use in people. The name is not printed on the list, and that absence is not a loophole.
Sources
- ClinicalTrials.gov, API v2. Queries on 15 September 2026: term "livagen" total count 0. Term "Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala" total count 25, all of them opened and none concerning this peptide; the hyphenated query is split into its component words, so the hits are protein and amino acid nutrition studies such as NCT06769100 and NCT04072770. Control query, intervention "semaglutide", returns 752 studies, so the interface works. No record for this substance exists, and therefore none from the test sponsor whose mock records appear elsewhere in this register. https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies
- Khavinson VKh (2006). Tetrapeptide stimulating the functional activity of hepatocytes, pharmacological substance on its basis and the method of its application. US patent 7,101,854 B2; parallel Russian patent RU 2166957 C1, priority 9 October 2000, published 20 May 2001. Filed 15 May 2001, granted 5 September 2006; original applicant Nostiji Klinika Instituta Bioregulyatsii Gerontologii OOO, transferred to GEROPHARM Ltd in 2007, legal status "expired, fee related", lapse date 17 August 2022. Both full texts read on 15 September 2026. Claims Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala as SEQ ID NO: 1, formula C18H31N5O9 and mass 461.48 without a counter-ion, with dosing claimed "from 0.01 to 100 mcg/kg of body mass, at least once per a day for a period of 10-40 days" by the parenteral, intranasal or oral route. Substance described as a white amorphous powder without smell, moisture 7 per cent, pH 5.54 of a 0.001 per cent solution; the only pharmaceutical form described is one ampoule holding 1 ml of solution at 10 µg/ml in 0.9 per cent sodium chloride. Example 2, toxicology: mice given 1 to 5 mg/kg once into a muscle; rats given 1 µg/kg, 0.3 mg/kg or 3 mg/kg daily into a muscle for 90 days; rats given 1 µg/kg, 0.1 mg/kg or 1 mg/kg daily into a muscle for six months; reported outcome "no pathologic alterations". Example 3: rat liver cells aged 4, 8 and 18 months, 0.005 µg/ml over four hours, protein synthesis raised, most strongly in old animals. Example 4: liver explants from 10- to 11-day chicken embryos, range 2 to 400 ng/ml, significant stimulation at 20 ng/ml with a 24 per cent increase of the area index on day three. Example 5: rats given carbon tetrachloride 0.5 ml per 100 g daily for five days, 1 µg of the tetrapeptide daily during exposure or for 15 days after it, with less tissue damage and biochemical values restored by day 20. Example 7, the only human account: 23 patients aged 32 to 53 with chronic persistent hepatitis of 10 to 20 years duration, against a control group of 12 patients on conventional treatment, dosed as claimed above. No example names randomisation, blinding, a placebo or an endpoint fixed in advance, and none has ever appeared in a journal. A property right, not a reviewed publication. https://patents.google.com/patent/US7101854B2/en
- St Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology, catalogue page for this peptide series, retrieved 15 September 2026. Lists exactly seven products: Vezugen (vessels), Pinealon (brain cells), Cartalax (cartilage), Cristagen (immune system), Ovagen (liver and digestive tract), Chonluten (lung and bronchial lining) and Vizulingval (retina). Livagen is not among them, and the liver place belongs to Ovagen. https://gerontology.ru/cytogens
- Russian trade record for Ovagen, retrieved 15 September 2026. A retail page offers Ovagen in capsules as the liver bioregulator of this series, naming glutamic acid, aspartic acid and leucine as its composition, while no equivalent product exists for Livagen. Cited only as evidence of what is and is not sold. Not linked.
- Khavinson V, Linkova N, Kozhevnikova E, Dyatlova A, Petukhov M (2022). Transport of biologically active ultrashort peptides using POT and LAT carriers. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23(14):7733. PMID 35887081. PMCID PMC9323678. DOI 10.3390/ijms23147733. Full text and tables 1 and 2 read. Table 2 lists "Livagen (KEDA) −22.01 Hepatoprotector", rank 10 of 28, alongside Vesilut (ED) −34.32, Chonluten (EDG) −30.30, Pinealon (EDR) −30.29, Cardiogen (AEDR) −29.81, Ovagen (EDL) −28.27, Cartalax (AED) −26.65, Epitalon (AEDG) −20.38, Fuaget (DL) −16.01 and Korthagen (AEDP) −12.11. Fuaget carries the same one-word Hepatoprotector label as Livagen, and Ovagen is labelled "Nephroprotector/Hepatoprotector", so three of the 28 rows point at the liver. Table 1 places known LAT1 ligands between −19.67 and −15.00, and the threshold is the authors own: "ICM-Score function values of the studied USPs less than −15 may indicate a high probability of highly efficient binding to the LAT1 transporter." The organ labels in that table are the authors attributions, not findings, and the Livagen row is backed by reference 171, which is the review listed here as number 15. The same paper states that KEDW and KEDA peptides resist hydrolysis for three to four hours in saline, Ringer solution, hydrochloric acid and tissue homogenates, but supports that sentence with a general review of intestinal peptide absorption rather than with an experiment on this peptide; the fitting source is the paper listed here as number 10.
- Khavinson V, Linkova N, Dyatlova A, Kantemirova R, Kozlov K et al. (2023). Feasibility of transport of 26 biologically active ultrashort peptides via LAT and PEPT family transporters. Biomolecules 13(3):552. PMID 36979488. PMCID PMC10046148. DOI 10.3390/biom13030552. Full text and tables 1, 3, 5 and 7 read. KEDA scored −28.83 at LAT1 against structure 6IRT, rank 11 of 26; −21.45 at LAT2 against 7CMH, rank 17; −16.70 at PEPT1 against 7PN1, rank 20; and +11.60 at PEPT2 against 7PMY, rank 21, a positive value meaning no favourable fit. Method: docking with ICM-Pro and the ECEPP/3 force field on a supercomputer, against a comparison library of all di- and tripeptides including mirror sequences, 8,400 compounds. The paper names KEDA among the peptides likely to be stronger inhibitors of LAT2 and comparable to inhibitors of PEPT1, limits its own PEPT2 results because the available structure does not allow a reliable assessment, and explains the difference from the previous year in a footnote to table 1: "The data obtained in this work differ somewhat from preliminary calculations". Molecular docking only; no transport measurement, and no pharmacokinetic data for the substance in this or any other publication found.
- PubMed, NCBI E-utilities, and Europe PMC, REST search, retrieved 15 September 2026. "Livagen" returns 19 PubMed records and 23 Europe PMC records, all of which were opened individually; "Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala" returns 20 PubMed records. Of those, about ten are chromatin papers from one group in Tbilisi, four are explant or liver cell papers, two are docking papers, one an enzyme paper, one a bioinformatics paper, and the remainder reviews in which the name appears as a list item. Control findings: "lysyl-glutamyl-aspartyl-alanine" returns nothing, and "KEDA peptide" returns 27 mostly unrelated records because the code collides with other abbreviations. No paper by a group independent of the originating school was found. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=livagen
- Western research-chemical listing for Livagen, retrieved 15 September 2026. Freeze-dried white powder, 20 mg per vial, purity stated by the seller as "≥99% by HPLC" with a third-party certificate for one batch giving 99.917 per cent and a measured 24.39 mg against 20 mg declared, at about 100 US dollars per vial. Carries the notice "This product is intended for laboratory research use only. Not for human or veterinary use. Not approved for diagnostic, therapeutic, or medical applications", while the same page explains how to dissolve it. Trade record, cited as evidence of what is sold. Two further pages, one Ukrainian, returned HTTP 403 and could not be read. Not linked.
- PubChem. Compound CID 87919683, Livagen, C18H31N5O9, 461.5 g/mol, exact mass 461.21217758, InChIKey IKVDKWACACMDLR-BJDJZHNGSA-N, calculated XLogP −7.7, topological polar surface area 251 Ų, complexity 700, eight hydrogen-bond donors, eleven acceptors, sixteen rotatable bonds, formal charge 0. The SMILES string confirms the sequence Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala. Only four synonyms are held, one of which is the registry number 433257-50-2, so the CAS number rests on this record alone. Name resolution fails reproducibly for "Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala", "KEDA", "H-Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala-OH" and the full chemical name, which is why the compound is often reported as absent. Retrieved 15 September 2026. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/87919683
- Timofeeva NM, Khavinson VKh, Malinin VV, Nikitina AA, Egorova VV (2005). Effect of peptide Livagen on activity of digestive enzymes in gastrointestinal tract and non-digestive organs in rats of different ages. Advances in Gerontology 16:92-96. PMID 16075683. In Russian. The only reviewed experiment in living animals that does not come from the patent. States that peptide hydrolases of the small intestine do not hydrolyse the peptide even to a small extent, and that in vitro it reduces glycyl-L-leucine dipeptidase activity in the small intestine by 50 per cent. After two weeks by mouth, digestive enzyme activity fell in young animals and rose in old ones, in most cases approaching the level of young controls. No amount and no statistics in the abstract. Also cited for the protein synthesis work of Brodskii VIa, Khavinson VKh, Zolotarev IuA, Nechaeva NV, Malinin VV, Novikova TE, Gvazava IG, Fateeva VI (2001), Rhythm of protein synthesis in cultures of hepatocytes from rats of different ages, Izvestiia Akademii Nauk Seriia Biologicheskaia (5):517-521, PMID 15926314, which is the clearest origin statement in the reviewed literature: "The peptide lyvagen (Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala) obtained by directed chemical synthesis on the basis of amino acid analysis of the liver polypeptide preparations increased the level of protein synthesis in the hepatocytes from rats of different ages; the highest effect was observed in the cells of old animals", with the contrasting result that Epitalon "did not change the intensity of protein synthesis" in the same cultures. Monolayer liver cell cultures from rats aged 1 to 24 months, 45 to 480 g; no concentration in the abstract.
- Khavinson VK (2001). Tissue-specific effects of peptides. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine 132(2):807-808. PMID 11713572. DOI 10.1023/a:1013058701974. Two pages. Organotypic explant cultures from rat brain cortex, subcortical structures, liver and thymus; the house term appears in the sentence "Synthetic peptides (cytogens) Cortagen, Epithalon, Livagen, and Vilon stimulated the growth of explants from rat brain cortex, subcortical structures, liver, and thymus, respectively", which is the origin of the liver assignment. No concentrations, group sizes or effect sizes in the abstract. The same programme is set out in Khavinson VKh (2002), Peptides and ageing, Neuro-Endocrinology Letters 23 Suppl 3:11-144, PMID 12374906, which names the liver as one of four target organs of the tetrapeptide series.
- U.S. National Library of Medicine. MeSH supplementary concept UID 67473185, "Livagen", heading mapped to oligopeptides, entry terms "lysyl-glutamyl-aspartylalanine" and "Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala", previous indexing "oligonucleotides (2003-2005)". Retrieved 15 September 2026. The record holds no registry number field, so the CAS number cannot be cross-checked here. https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/efetch.fcgi?db=mesh&id=67473185
- United States register checks, 15 September 2026. FDA Global Substance Registration System, queries for "livagen" and for "LYS-GLU-ASP-ALA": zero records each, while the control query "semaglutide" returns five, so no substance code exists. openFDA drug label API, search "livagen" and substance name "LIVAGEN": not found. openFDA adverse event database, medicinal product "livagen": not found. DailyMed web services v2: zero entries, database state 14 September 2026. https://gsrs.ncats.nih.gov
- Curated chemistry database checks, 15 September 2026. ChEMBL molecule search for the name returns total count 0, and a search by structure key IKVDKWACACMDLR-BJDJZHNGSA-N also returns 0. No DrugBank record was found. The Wikidata entity Q137538072 carries the label and the description "pharmaceutical compound" but no statements at all, no formula, no registry number and no database links, so it is worthless as an identity source. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/api/data/
- Kuznik BI, Khasanova NB, Ryzhak GA, Mezsheriakova IE, Khavinson VK (2020). The influence of polypeptide liver complex and tetrapeptide KEDA on organism physiological function in norm and age-related pathology. Advances in Gerontology 33(1):159-164. PMID 32362099. In Russian, abstract read in both languages. Expressly a review, in its own words "In the review is shown the data", and not a primary study. It treats a polypeptide complex extracted from calf liver and the synthetic tetrapeptide together, and its Russian abstract names animal models of experimental liver disease and work in vitro as the entire basis. It asserts high efficiency and restored liver function, and it is the reference with which the 2022 overview supports the Hepatoprotector label. The whole efficacy claim for this peptide rests on it.
- Khavinson VK, Linkova NS, Dyatlova AS, Kuznik BI, Umnov RS (2021). Peptides regulation of gene expression: a systematic review. Molecules 26(22):7053. PMID 34834147. PMCID PMC8619776. DOI 10.3390/molecules26227053. Full text checked. Cited for the general working range of these peptides in culture, "from 2 to 200 ng/mL", which is not specific to this substance. Documented negative finding: Livagen, KEDA and Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala do not appear anywhere in this systematic review by the same group on gene regulation by short peptides, and the same is true of their 2020 review in the same journal, PMID 32987757.
- Khavinson VKh, Malinin VV, Chalisova NI, Grigor'ev EI (2002). Tissue-specific action of peptides in tissue culture of rats of various ages. Advances in Gerontology 9:95-100. PMID 12096446. In Russian. Compares the polypeptide preparations Cortexin, Epithalamin, Hepalin and Thymalin with the synthetic short peptides Cortagen, Epitalon, Livagen and Vilon, assigning this one to the liver preparation Hepalin. The tissue-specific effect is reported with respect to the applied concentrations, and the abstract names neither the concentrations nor any effect size. A further liver paper of the same period, Riadnova IIu, Filippov SV, Iuzhakov VV (2002), Advances in Gerontology 10:88-94, PMID 12577697, reports that the peptide stimulates structural and functional homeostasis in an organotypic liver culture, with no figures and no concentration.
- Kost NV, Sokolov OIu, Gabaeva MV, Zolotarev IuA, Malinin VV, Khavinson VKh (2003). Effect of new peptide bioregulators livagen and epitalon on enkephalin-degrading enzymes in human serum. Izvestiia Akademii Nauk Seriia Biologicheskaia (4):427-429. PMID 12942748. In Russian. Both peptides inhibited enkephalin-degrading enzymes from human serum, with half-inhibiting concentrations of 20 and 500 µM respectively, and Livagen was more effective than puromycin, leupeptin and D-PAM. Negative finding in the same paper: "No interaction was observed between the tested peptides and mu- or delta-opioid receptors of the membrane fraction from the rat brain."
- Khavinson VKh, Lezhava TA, Monaselidze JG, Dzhokhadze TA, Dvalishvili NA, Bablishvili NK, Ryadnova IY (2002). Effects of Livagen peptide on chromatin activation in lymphocytes from old people. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine 134(4):389-392. PMID 12533768. DOI 10.1023/a:1021924702103. The first paper on this peptide and chromatin: activation of ribosomal genes, decondensation of pericentromeric structural heterochromatin and release of euchromatic regions condensed with age. Cells in short-term culture; no concentration and no number of donors in the abstract.
- Khavinson VKh, Lezhava TA, Malinin VV (2004). Effects of short peptides on lymphocyte chromatin in senile subjects. Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine 137(1):78-81. PMID 15085253. DOI 10.1023/b:bebm.0000024393.40560.05. White cell cultures from donors aged 75 to 88. All five peptides tested, Vilon, Epithalon, Livagen, Prostamax and Cortagen, activated ribosomal genes and decondensed tightly packed chromatin fibrils; the packed region of chromosome 1 was loosened by three of them and that of chromosome 9 by two, Livagen among them. Five peptides acting alike is an argument against a sharp tissue assignment at this level. Human cells in a dish, nobody treated, and no concentrations in the abstract.
- Lezhava T, Monaselidze J, Kadotani T, Dvalishvili N, Buadze T (2006). Anti-aging peptide bioregulators induce reactivation of chromatin. Georgian Medical News (133):111-115. PMID 16705247. Cells from donors aged 75 to 88; Epitalon, Livagen and Vilon activated ribosomal genes, and the first two loosened the packed regions of chromosomes 1 and 9 while Vilon did not.
- Lezhava T, Jokhadze T, Monaselidze J, Buadze T, Gaiozishvili M, Sigua T et al. (2023). Epigenetic modification under the influence of peptide bioregulators on the "old" chromatin. Georgian Medical News (335):79-83. PMID 37042594. Donors aged 75 to 88. Writes the assignment out in full, "Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala-Livagen", and states expressly that these peptides do not decondense the pericentromeric structural heterochromatin, contradicting the same group in 2004 and 2006. The earlier summary of that programme is Lezhava T et al. (2020), Georgian Medical News (309):120-124, PMID 33526740, using differential scanning calorimetry, nucleolar organiser activity, C-heterochromatin and sister chromatid exchanges.
- Dzhokhadze TA, Buadze TZh, Gaiozishvili MN, Rogava MA, Lazhava TA (2013). Functional regulation of genome with peptide bioregulators by hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (by patients and relatives). Georgian Medical News (225):94-97. PMID 24423684. Cell cultures from people with a thickened heart muscle and from their first-degree relatives; Epithalon, Vilon and Livagen were tested, the last of them also alongside cobalt chloride. The ranking is explicit and not in this peptide's favour: "The most effective protective action … shows Epithalon". A second paper of the same series, Georgian Medical News (234):134-137, PMID 25341254, reports more large nucleolar organiser regions under the peptide alone and with cobalt ions.
- Dzhokhadze TA, Buadze TZh, Gaiozishvili MN, Kakauridze NG, Lezhava TA (2014). Genomic instability in atherosclerosis. Georgian Medical News (236):82-86. PMID 25541832. Cell cultures from people over 80 with hardened arteries against controls aged 30 to 35. Cited here as a documented case of overreach: the paper concludes from chromosomes in a dish that "The identified protective action of Livagen proves its efficacy in prevention of atherosclerosis", which does not follow from cell culture data and is not reported on this page as a finding.
- Dzhokhadze TA, Ganozishvili MN, Lezhava TA (2008). The effect of heavy metal ions and peptide bioregulators on the expression of chromosome fragile sites in individuals of different age groups. Georgian Medical News (162):11-14. PMID 18830022. Title shortened here; the paper is cited only for its age-group result. Nickel, zinc and cobalt ions served as the damaging agents and two peptides as correctors, and the finding runs against the ageing hypothesis: "Both tested bioregulators lessen heavy metals effect that was statistically reliable only for the young people group." A related paper, Georgian Medical News (148-149):50-54, PMID 17921545, reports corrective activity after gamma irradiation at 0.2 and 0.5 Gy and at 1 and 2 Gy without giving any figures.
- Collected trade and overview pages naming amounts, retrieved 15 September 2026. Figures circulating side by side: 200 µg a day under the skin as the most common, 100 to 300 µg once or twice a day, 500 µg to 2 mg a day, and a course presented as a laboratory schedule totalling 50 to 100 mg over ten days, with courses of 10 to 14 days and breaks of 6 to 12 weeks. None of these figures appears in any paper read for this page, and they contradict each other by up to two orders of magnitude. Trade records, cited only as evidence that such figures circulate. Not linked.
- US Food and Drug Administration. Bulk drug substances nominated for use in compounding under section 503A of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, state of 14 May 2026. Checked in full text on 15 September 2026: neither the name nor the code nor the sequence appears in any of the three categories, so the substance was never even put forward for review. Control: alanyl-L-glutamine, a short peptide, stands in the list. Two warning letters of 2026 were also read in full, references 729447 and 735063: they name other substances under sections 301(d) and 505(a) of the Act and not this one, although one of them names Prostamax, a preparation from the same circle. https://www.fda.gov/media/94155/download
- European, British, Swiss and Russian register checks, 15 September 2026. The European Medicines Agency search returned HTTP 403 to an automated request, so no register query was possible. MHRA Products returned 122,696 bytes for both the query and the control query, byte for byte identical, which is a page shell and not a result. The Swissmedic page for authorised medicines returned HTTP 404. The Russian state medicines register is an ASPX application and could not be queried, so neither a medicine registration nor a supplement registration could be confirmed or ruled out. All four are recorded as unverified gaps rather than nil results; the finding of no authorisation rests on every other register checked and on the absence of any registered trial.
- German Anti-Doping Act, annex to section 2 paragraph 3, published as BGBl. 2023 I No. 67. Full text checked 15 September 2026: the name, the code and the sequence do not appear, and section II lists peptide hormones, releasing factors and growth factors one by one, with no catch-all heading a liver tetrapeptide could fall under. The closing sentence extends the listed substances to their salts, esters, ethers, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes and derivatives, and creates no new group. Possession is therefore not an offence under that provision, which changes nothing about the sporting ban. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/antidopg/anlage.html
- Therapeutic Goods (Poisons Standard — June 2026) Instrument 2026, Australia, signed 27 May 2026. Full text checked 15 September 2026 for the name, the code and the sequence: no match, and no general heading for peptides exists in the standard. Control: alanylglutamine appears twice and pralmorelin three times, so short peptides are listed there by name when they are listed at all. The Australian medicines register could not be queried programmatically. Unapproved research peptides are handled there much as prescription substances are, so absence from the standard is not permission.
- Health Canada, Drug Product Database API, brand-name queries for "livagen" and "lys-glu-asp-ala": empty results. Control query returns records with DIN 02471469. Retrieved 15 September 2026. The substance is nonetheless offered by research-chemical sellers with Canadian addresses. https://health-products.canada.ca/api/drug/drugproduct/
- World Anti-Doping Agency. The 2026 Prohibited List, in force from 1 January 2026, sections S0 and S2. Wording of S0: "All prohibited substances in this class are Specified Substances. Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited at all times." Full text checked 15 September 2026: the name, the code and the sequence return no match, so the classification follows from the general clause; control check, BPC-157 is named in that same clause. Section S2 was read in full and its subsections are occupied by erythropoietin-related agents, testosterone-stimulating peptides, corticotrophins, growth hormone and its fragments, releasing factors and growth factors, none of which describes a liver tetrapeptide. Cobalt is named in section S2.1.2 as an agent activating hypoxia-inducible factor and is not a specified substance. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list
- "Sia Peptides" OOO (2007). Peptide stimulating regeneration of liver tissue, pharmaceutical composition on its basis and method of its application. Russian patent RU 2297239 C1, filed 30 May 2006, published 20 April 2007. Read on 15 September 2026 to separate the two substances: this patent claims H-Glu-Asp-Leu-OH, the three-part peptide Ovagen, and not Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala. It is the liver regeneration document that trade pages regularly attribute to Livagen. https://patents.google.com/patent/RU2297239C1/en
- Western overview page for Livagen, retrieved 15 September 2026. Documented source of two false figures: it gives the formula as C19H33N5O9 and the mass as 475.5 Da, against C18H31N5O9 and 461.5 in three independent records, and it names a protein synthesis improvement of 42 to 150 per cent, a range that appears in none of the papers read for this page. Trade record, cited only as the documented instance of those errors. Not linked.
Cite this page
The register checks and literature searches behind this page were run on 15 September 2026. For a substance with this little record, the date on which those searches came back nearly empty is part of the finding.
myPeptides Research & Editing. (2026). Livagen: what the studies show, status and safety. Version 1.0, 15 September 2026. myPeptides Peptide Register. Retrieved from https://mypep.app/peptides/livagen
How pages in this register are compiled and graded is described under methodology; the full register is at peptides.
| Version | Date | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2026-09-15 | Initial publication |
Last verified: 15 September 2026. Next review: on the appearance of any registered study in people, any independent replication of the laboratory findings, or any change in the anti-doping classification.