PNC-27: status, the FDA warning and what is unknown
Summary
PNC-27 is a laboratory peptide that joins a fragment of the human protein p53 to a positively charged transport sequence. It has never entered a registered clinical trial anywhere, in twenty-five years. In 2017 the American regulator warned against using it and found bacteria in two separate commercial samples. The one published human observation ended in a death whose cause remains open.
Key findings at a glance
- Zero registered clinical trials, in twenty-five years. Queries of the international registry on 16 September 2026 returned no entry for PNC-27 or for the spelling PNC27. A control query in the same run returned one study [1], [2].
- The American regulator warned patients against it in 2017. Its wording was that it had never evaluated or approved PNC-27 as safe and effective to treat any disease [3].
- Bacteria were found in two separate commercial samples. An agency laboratory identified Variovorax paradoxus in one preparation, and an update on 27 March 2017 named Ralstonia insidiosa in a second [3].
- The only published human observation ended in a death. A patient developed a massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage after experimental use and died. The report's own title calls the causal link open [4].
- The claimed selectivity was measured once independently, at a factor of two to three. The same work traced that difference to the transport sequence, not to the p53 fragment [5].
- The most-cited animal work studies a different peptide. It concerns PNC-28, a separate member of the same numbered series, and is routinely quoted as though it were about PNC-27 [6].
- It carries no substance identifier in the American register, while its sister peptide does. An exact search for PNC-27 returned nothing; PNC-28 returned a registered entry [7].
- It is banned in sport at all times under the catch-all class for non-approved substances [8].
What it is
PNC-27 is a linear peptide of 32 building blocks, all of them ordinary protein amino acids. There is no ring closure, no mirror-image unit and no sulphur bridge. Chemically it is a plain peptide, unusual only in its length.
The name is an internal counting label. It marks the twenty-seventh entry in a numbered series built by one laboratory in Brooklyn, New York, and first described in 2001 [1]. No international non-proprietary name was ever assigned, and no brand name exists.
The molecule has two halves. The first is a fifteen-unit stretch copied from the human protein p53, the section that attaches to a regulatory protein called HDM-2. The second is a seventeen-unit, strongly positively charged sequence that carries the whole thing across cell membranes [1].
Quick facts
| Field | Value | Ref |
|---|---|---|
| Name | PNC-27; an internal laboratory label, not an official drug name | [1] |
| Other names | PNC27; described in the literature as a chimeric p53-penetratin peptide | [1] |
| Class | Chimeric, cell-penetrating, membrane-disrupting peptide; not a hormone | [1] |
| Structure | PPLSQETFSDLWKLLKKWKMRRNQFWVKVQRG; 32 amino acids, linear, no cysteine | [1], [9] |
| Formula and mass | C188H293N53O44S, 4032 g/mol | [9] |
| Half-life | Never published, in any species | [10] |
| Status | Not approved anywhere; never in a registered trial | [2] |
| First described by | Martin Kanovsky, Josef Michl, Robert Fine, Matthew Pincus and colleagues, 2001 | [1] |
| CAS registry number | 1159861-00-3 | [9] |
| PubChem CID | 16201774 | [9] |
| InChIKey | MZCACYLMMMXSKC-KOCFKOPYSA-N | [9] |
| UNII | None; the sister peptide PNC-28 is registered under 5237P710BP | [7] |
| ChEMBL, DrugBank, pharmacopoeia | None found on 16 September 2026 | [7], [9] |
How it works
Nothing in this section has been tested in a human being. What follows is a published hypothesis and the disagreement around it, described as a piece of laboratory reasoning rather than as an effect anyone has observed in people.
- The p53 half attaches to HDM-2. HDM-2 is the human form of a protein that normally keeps p53 in check inside the cell. The structure of the p53 fragment in PNC-27 can be laid over the structure of the same stretch when it is attached to HDM-2 [11].
- The authors propose that HDM-2 also sits in the outer membrane of some cells. In their cultures they detected it in the membranes of transformed cell lines and not in the untransformed lines they examined [11].
- From there the proposed sequence is physical, not chemical. The authors suggest that the attached molecules assemble into pores, that the contents of the cell leak out and that the cell falls apart. They coined the word poptosis for this idea [12], [13].
- The peptide is amphipathic, which is the ordinary explanation for such behaviour. Structural work found water-repelling units on one face and water-attracting units on the other. That property is shared by many membrane-disrupting peptides and says nothing specific about HDM-2 [14].
- A competing explanation exists, from an independent group. Its authors traced the difference between cell types to the transport sequence itself, not to the p53 fragment, and to a sugar chain that the transport sequence attaches to [5].
- A second independent group reports a different mechanism entirely. It describes a chain of events running through the breakdown of a cell-adhesion protein rather than through pore formation [15].
The proposed mechanism is explicitly independent of p53 itself. In the original experiments the effect appeared in cells that carry no p53 at all, which is why the authors do not describe the molecule as restoring anything [1].
This places PNC-27 outside the peptide classes it is often listed beside. It is not a hormone, not a hormone analogue and not a receptor agonist. Its proposed action is the physical destruction of a membrane [1].
What the published work contains
Almost the whole body of work sits in cell culture, and most of it comes from the laboratory that built the molecule. A search of the main biomedical index on 16 September 2026 returned 27 entries, two of which concern unrelated subjects that share the abbreviation [10].
Index and registry queries run on 16 September 2026. The biomedical index returned 27 entries, of which 2 concern unrelated subjects sharing the abbreviation. The single human clinical observation is a conference case report that is not indexed there. The trial registry returned nothing, while a control query in the same run returned one study. Sources [2], [4], [10].
No clinical trial, ever
No human evidence Three separate queries of the international trial registry on 16 September 2026 returned zero entries: for the intervention name, for the free-text term PNC-27 and for the spelling PNC27. A control query in the same run returned one study, so the interface was working [2].
This is a stronger negative than a failed trial. There is no phase 1 study to read, no termination notice and no unpublished result. The step was never taken at all [2].
The work comes from one place
Laboratory data The 2001 description, and most of what followed, came from two people at one department in Brooklyn and their collaborators. Independent confirmation of the central idea is the exception rather than the rule [1], [10].
The most prominent independent paper, published in 2020, supports the existence of the proposed target structure. It then describes a different mechanism from the one the originating group proposes [15].
The selectivity claim, checked independently
Laboratory data, independent One group tested the claim systematically by swapping the transport sequence for three others. With the original sequence the difference between the two cell types was a factor of two to three. With any of the substitutes it disappeared [5].
The same work ran the test in reverse. Unrelated membrane-damaging molecules acquired the same difference once they were attached to the original transport sequence [5].
The authors offered a molecular explanation for this: transport sequences of that family attach to a sugar chain that some cell types carry in larger amounts. Removing that sugar chain enzymatically reduced the effect [5].
What is still unknown
- What the human body does with it. No half-life, no distribution, no breakdown products and no excretion data have been published, for any species [10].
- What amount a human being tolerates. No study has ever looked, in any species [10].
- Whether the immune system reacts to it. No antibody data exist [10].
- Basic toxicology. No published organ toxicity work, no genotoxicity data, no reproductive data and no carcinogenicity data could be found [10].
- What it does to ordinary cells. The originating group reports damage to internal cell structures; that work was done in transformed cells only [16].
- What is in the material traded online. No independent laboratory analysis of a commercial vial has been published [17].
Side effects and safety
There is no human safety database for PNC-27, and that is not a figure of speech. Without a clinical trial there was never a systematic collection of adverse events, never a tolerated amount and never a pharmacokinetic measurement [2], [10].
Queries of the international trial registry and of the main biomedical index on 16 September 2026, with the single case report added from the publisher's bibliographic entry. The case report is a conference abstract and is not indexed in the biomedical databases. Sources [2], [4], [10].
- A regulator warned patients directly. On 10 January 2017 the American agency told cancer patients not to buy or use PNC-27 products. It stated that it had never evaluated or approved the substance as safe and effective for any disease [3].
- Bacteria were found twice, in two separate samples. An agency laboratory identified Variovorax paradoxus in one commercial preparation. The update of 27 March 2017 named Ralstonia insidiosa in a second one [3].
- The agency named who is most at risk from that. It listed young children, older people, pregnant women and people with weakened immune systems, and warned that a contaminated preparation can cause severe, potentially life-threatening infection [3].
- The forms in circulation were never assessed by anyone. The warning names a nebulised solution, a solution for injection into a vein, and vaginal and rectal suppositories. None of these is a laboratory format [3].
- One published case report exists, and it ended in a death. A patient who had received PNC-27 experimentally, outside any study, presented with bleeding and was found to have a bleeding stomach ulcer. Bleeding continued after endoscopic treatment, and the patient died after care was changed to comfort measures only [4].
- That report's authors state the position plainly. Their own words are that there is currently no published data on efficacy or side effect profile in humans. The title of the report asks whether the event was a complication or a coincidence [4].
The causal link in that case is open and must stay open. The patient was seriously ill, and a single report cannot establish cause. It is nonetheless the only clinical observation of this substance that exists anywhere [4].
Three further risks follow from the chemistry rather than from any observation. Each is a reason for caution, not a finding.
- The margin is narrow. A difference of two to three between cell types is very little room for a molecule whose proposed action is the physical destruction of membranes [5].
- The target protein is not confined to unusual cells. HDM-2 is present throughout the body. The entire safety argument rests on the claim that it sits in the outer membrane only in some cells, and that claim has been examined independently once [11], [15].
- Nothing is known about the immune response. No antibody data, no half-life and no breakdown products have been published, in any species [10].
Material traded online is sold as a freeze-dried laboratory reagent. The sellers' own terms state that it is not intended for human or animal consumption and that introduction into the body is prohibited by law [17].
Why this page lists no doses
This page gives no amounts for PNC-27, in any unit, for humans or for laboratory work. No amount is known that a human being tolerates, and no study has ever set out to find one [2], [10].
The forms the regulator found in circulation were a nebulised solution, a solution for injection into a vein and suppositories. Those are not laboratory formats. They exist because somebody prepared them for people, and bacteria were found in two of them [3].
A substance with no tolerated amount, no half-life and no toxicology in any species has no figure to quote. Any number here would function as an instruction rather than as a citation. There is nothing here to cite [10].
Development and approval status
PNC-27 has never been approved in any market and has never reached a registered clinical trial. Register checks on 16 September 2026 found nothing anywhere [2].
From a numbered laboratory series to a safety warning
- 2001First descriptionA numbered peptide series is described; PNC-27 is the twenty-seventh entry, ref [1]
- 2004Structure resolvedStructural work describes the molecule as amphipathic in both water and membrane-like surroundings, ref [14]
- 2006The animal paper, but not this peptideThe most-cited animal work of the series studies PNC-28, a different member, ref [6]
- 2010Target hypothesis, and a counter-checkThe originating group proposes membrane-bound HDM-2; an independent group traces the difference to the transport sequence instead, refs [11], [5]
- 2017The regulator warnsA safety communication on 10 January is updated on 27 March after a second contaminated sample, ref [3]
- 2017The case reportThe only published human observation appears; the patient died and causality is left open, ref [4]
- 2020Independent work, different mechanismThe most prominent independent paper supports the target structure but describes another mechanism, ref [15]
- 2026Still no trialRegistry queries on 16 September return nothing, twenty-five years after the first description, ref [2]
- 2001 the numbered series is described, with PNC-27 as its twenty-seventh entry [1].
- 2004 structural work describes the molecule as amphipathic in both water and membrane-like surroundings [14].
- 2006 the most-cited animal work of the series is published, and it studies PNC-28 rather than PNC-27 [6].
- 2010 the originating group proposes membrane-bound HDM-2 as the target, and an independent group publishes the counter-check in the same year [11], [5].
- January and March 2017 the safety communication appears and is then updated after a second contaminated sample [3].
- October 2017 the only published human observation appears as a conference case report [4].
- 2020 the most prominent independent paper supports the target structure but describes a different mechanism [15].
- 2026 registry queries return nothing, twenty-five years after the first description [2].
| Market | Status | Since or note |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Unapproved | Safety warning issued |
| European Union | Unapproved | No assessment report |
| Germany | Unapproved | Not scheduled |
| United Kingdom | Unapproved | Unlicensed |
| Australia | Unregistered | Not scheduled |
| Canada | Unapproved | No product number |
| Switzerland | Unapproved | None found |
Five of these entries rest on register queries run alongside a control substance in the same database on the same day. A blank result therefore means absence, not a broken query [18], [19], [20], [21], [22].
The German entry rests on the full texts of the narcotics annexes, checked against working control terms [23]. The British entry is weaker: the register could not be queried at all, so the status is inferred from the worldwide picture rather than from a match [24].
One finding deserves separate mention. PNC-27 appears in no American list of bulk substances nominated for pharmacy compounding, while BPC-157, ipamorelin and kisspeptin all appear in the same document. Nobody has ever asked for a lawful way to make it for people [25].
The wider legal picture is under are peptides legal and FDA-approved peptides.
Anti-doping
PNC-27 is prohibited at all times, in and out of competition. It is not named on the 2026 list. It falls inside class S0, which covers any pharmacological substance with no current approval by a government health authority for human therapeutic use [8].
The wording gives drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development as an example. A substance that has stayed pre-clinical since 2001 fits that description exactly, so the classification needs no interpretation [8], [1].
Two mistakes are common. PNC-27 does not belong in class S2 with peptide hormones and growth factors, because it is neither a hormone nor an imitation of one. Being a peptide is not the same as being a peptide hormone [8].
The second is its absence from the annex to the German anti-doping statute. That annex is a closed list of substance groups with no counterpart to the catch-all class, so the gap is structural. It is not a permission, and medicines law applies regardless [26], [8].
No validated detection method has been published, which is not the same as being undetectable. The full picture is at peptides banned in sport.
Compared with related peptides
| Substance | What it is | Human evidence | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|
| PNC-27 | Membrane-disrupting peptide with a transport sequence; mechanism hypothetical | None; no registered trial has ever existed | [2] |
| Adipotide | Cell-killing conjugate with an address tag | One trial, terminated with four patients | — |
| FOXO4-DRI | Mirror-image peptide aimed at a protein interaction | See its own page | — |
| KPV | Three-unit fragment of a natural hormone | See its own page | — |
| LL-37 | Natural membrane-disrupting peptide of the immune system | See its own page | — |
The useful comparison here is not one of effect but one of evidence. Adipotide at least reached a registered trial and closed it. PNC-27 has no registry entry to close [2].
LL-37 is the closest structural relative in this list. It is a naturally occurring peptide that damages membranes, which makes it a reminder that membrane disruption is a common property rather than a targeted one [14].
A 2026 review of the grey market for unapproved peptides covers twelve substances and does not mention PNC-27 at all. It circulates in a different market from the sports peptides [27].
Common misconceptions
- "PNC-27 has been studied in clinical trials." Not once. Three registry queries on 16 September 2026 returned zero entries, with a working control query in the same run [2].
- "There are animal data showing what PNC-27 does." The most-cited animal work of the series studies PNC-28, a different peptide with a different p53 fragment. Quoting it as PNC-27 data confuses two substances [6].
- "PNC-27, PNC-28 and PNC-29 are versions of the same thing." They are three separate peptides from one numbered series. PNC-29 is the deliberately inactive control peptide used in those experiments [1], [28].
- "The transport half of PNC-27 is penetratin." The authors call it that, but the sequence is seventeen units long, while the canonical penetratin is sixteen and reads differently. The label is a family name, not an exact identification [1], [29].
- "No side effects are known for PNC-27, so it is well tolerated." Nothing is known because nobody has looked systematically. No data and no adverse events look identical in writing and mean opposite things [4], [10].
- "The FDA warning was about the substance itself." It had two parts. The trigger was a hygiene finding in two commercial samples. The second part is that the agency had never evaluated or approved the substance for anything [3].
- "If PNC-27 is sold openly as a reagent, it cannot be dangerous." The sellers' own terms say it is not intended for human or animal consumption. Being orderable says nothing about safety [17].
- "PNC-27 is new, which is why it has not been studied properly." It was first described in 2001. Twenty-five years without a registered trial is itself a finding, not a matter of insufficient time [1], [2].
Frequently asked questions
What is PNC-27?
It is a linear peptide of 32 building blocks, built in a laboratory and never approved anywhere. One half is a short fragment of the human protein p53. The other half is a positively charged transport sequence that carries the whole molecule through cell membranes. The name is an internal counting label, not an official drug name.
Has PNC-27 ever been tested in a clinical trial?
No, not once. Queries of the international trial registry on 16 September 2026 returned zero entries for PNC-27 and for the spelling PNC27, while a control query in the same run returned a study. Twenty-five years after the first description, the step into a registered trial has never been taken.
Why did the FDA warn about PNC-27?
For two separate reasons. An agency laboratory found the bacterium Variovorax paradoxus in a commercial PNC-27 preparation, and an update in March 2017 named a second organism, Ralstonia insidiosa, in another sample. Independently of that, the agency stated it had never evaluated or approved PNC-27 as safe and effective for any disease.
Is PNC-27 approved as a medicine anywhere?
No, and it never has been. Register checks on 16 September 2026 found no entry in the United States, the European Union, Germany, the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada or Switzerland. It is also absent from the American list of bulk substances nominated for pharmacy compounding, so no lawful route to make it for people has ever been requested.
What human safety data exist for PNC-27?
None of the usual kind. There is no tolerated amount, no half-life, no distribution data, no toxicology and no immune-response data, in any species. The single published human observation is a case report in which a patient developed a massive gastrointestinal haemorrhage after experimental use and died. Its authors describe the causal link as open.
Is PNC-27 selective for particular cells?
That claim rests on work from one laboratory. The single independent quantitative measurement put the difference between cell types at a factor of two to three, and traced it to the transport sequence rather than to the p53 fragment. Swapping that transport sequence for others removed the difference entirely.
Are PNC-27 and PNC-28 the same substance?
No. They are different peptides from the same numbered laboratory series and carry different fragments of p53. This matters because the most-cited animal work from that series studied PNC-28, not PNC-27, yet is often quoted as evidence about PNC-27. PNC-29, from the same series, is the deliberately inactive control peptide.
Is PNC-27 banned in sport?
Yes, at all times, in and out of competition. It is not named on the 2026 prohibited list. The catch-all class S0 covers any pharmacological substance with no current approval from a government health authority, naming pre-clinical compounds as an example. It is absent from the German anti-doping statute's annex, which is not a permission of any kind.
Why does this page give no amounts for PNC-27?
Because there is no amount that a human being is known to tolerate, and no study has ever looked for one. The forms found in circulation were made for people, not for laboratories, and two of them were contaminated. Any figure printed here would be read as an instruction rather than as a citation.
Sources
Several entries below are laboratory papers whose published titles assert a disease benefit. Those titles are not reproduced on this page. Each of those entries is identified instead by its authors, year, journal, volume and page range together with its PMID or DOI, which is sufficient to retrieve the original.
- Kanovsky M, Raffo A, Drew L, Rosal R, Do T, Friedman FK, et al. (2001). Design and first description of the numbered peptide series. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98(22):12438-12443. PMID 11606716. DOI 10.1073/pnas.211280698. Title not reproduced. Gives both part-sequences verbatim and records that the effect appeared in cells carrying no p53.
- ClinicalTrials.gov API v2, queried on 16 September 2026. Three queries returned a total count of zero: intervention PNC-27, free text PNC-27, free text PNC27. A control query for prohibitin in the same run returned one study, NCT01262664. https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies
- US Food and Drug Administration. "FDA warns cancer patients not to use PNC-27 products for treatment". First published 10 January 2017, updated 27 March 2017. The live page returned HTTP 404 on 16 September 2026; the full text was read from the agency's own web archive, Archive-It collection 7993, snapshot of 23 April 2019. Names both organisms, the dosage forms in circulation and the groups most at risk. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20190423141621/https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/ucm536094.htm
- Aguon PM, Aasen T, Distler ES, Mallin E (2017). Experimental PNC-27 Therapy and Massive GI Hemorrhage: A Complication or Coincidence? Am J Gastroenterol 112(Suppl 1):S1035-S1036, abstract 1880. DOI 10.14309/00000434-201710001-01880. Bibliographic details verified through the Crossref API on 16 September 2026; the publisher's full text was behind a payment barrier and the abstract text was read from a search-engine extract of the same page. Not indexed in the biomedical databases.
- Yang H, Liu C, Zhao Y, Ge L, Chen J, Jia M, et al. (2010). Independent quantitative check of the selectivity claim for transport-sequence-directed peptides. J Biol Chem 285(33):25666-25676. PMID 20484051. DOI 10.1074/jbc.M109.089417. Title not reproduced. Reports the factor of two to three, the loss of the difference on substituting the transport sequence, and the sugar-chain explanation.
- Michl J, Scharf B, Schmidt A, Huynh C, Hannan R, von Gizycki H, et al. (2006). Animal study of PNC-28, a different member of the same numbered series. Int J Cancer 119(7):1577-1585. PMID 16688716. DOI 10.1002/ijc.22029. Title not reproduced. Listed here only to record that the most-cited animal work of the series concerns PNC-28 and not PNC-27.
- FDA and NCATS Global Substance Registration System, exact searches on 16 September 2026: "PNC-27" and PNC27 each returned zero results, while "PNC-28" returned one entry with the identifier 5237P710BP. The negative finding is therefore measured against a working register. https://gsrs.ncats.nih.gov
- World Anti-Doping Agency. The 2026 Prohibited List, in force 1 January 2026, class S0 Non-Approved Substances. Full text read on 16 September 2026: no match for PNC-27, PNC27 or penetratin, with BPC-157 present in the same class as a control. https://www.wada-ama.org/en/prohibited-list
- PubChem compound CID 16201774, queried on 16 September 2026 for name resolution, formula, mass, InChIKey and synonyms. The synonym list holds exactly two entries, the name and the registry number, and contains no regulatory identifier. The deposited three-letter title matches the sequence in the first description unit for unit. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/16201774
- PubMed and Europe PMC, queried on 16 September 2026. The PubMed query PNC-27 OR PNC27 returned 27 entries, two of them concerning unrelated subjects that share the abbreviation; the Europe PMC query for the quoted phrase "PNC-27" returned 65. The review of all entries found no pharmacokinetic work, no formal toxicology, no immunogenicity data and no doping-analytical method. This is a negative finding from a small but fully reviewed body of literature.
- Sarafraz-Yazdi E, Bowne WB, Adler V, Sookraj KA, Wu V, Shteyler V, et al. (2010). The originating group's target hypothesis: binding conformation and membrane-located HDM-2. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 107(5):1918-1923. PMID 20080680. DOI 10.1073/pnas.0909364107. Title not reproduced. Includes the transfection experiment.
- Sarafraz-Yazdi E, Mumin S, Cheung D, Fridman D, Lin B, Wong L, et al. (2022). Imaging study of the membrane structures the originating group interprets as pores. Biomedicines 10(5):945. PMID 35625682. DOI 10.3390/biomedicines10050945. Title not reproduced. Electron-microscopy work.
- Pincus MR, Silberstein M, Zohar N, Sarafraz-Yazdi E, Bowne WB (2024). The review in which the originating group names its proposed mechanism poptosis. Biomedicines 12(6):1144. PMID 38927351. DOI 10.3390/biomedicines12061144. Title not reproduced.
- Rosal R, Pincus MR, Brandt-Rauf PW, Fine RL, Michl J, Wang H (2004). NMR solution structure of the p53 fragment of the molecule. Biochemistry 43(7):1854-1861. PMID 14967026. DOI 10.1021/bi035718g. Title not reproduced. Describes the molecule as amphipathic in both water and membrane-like surroundings.
- Wang H, Zhao D, Nguyen LX, Wu H, Li L, Dong D, et al. (2020). Independent work on membrane-located HDM-2. Leukemia 34(1):75-86. PMID 31337857. DOI 10.1038/s41375-019-0522-9. Title not reproduced. The most prominent independent work; supports the existence of the target structure but describes a different mechanism. The full text was not freely available on 16 September 2026, so only the abstract was used.
- Krzesaj P, Silberstein M, Sarafraz-Yazdi E, Bowne WB, Michl J, Pincus MR (2024). Report on the interaction with membrane-bound HDM-2 and with mitochondrial membranes. Ann Clin Lab Sci 54(2):137-148. PMID 38802154. Title not reproduced. Reports damage to internal cell structures; the experiments were run in transformed cells only.
- Online listing for a freeze-dried PNC-27 reagent, retrieved 16 September 2026. Used only as evidence of how the substance is labelled in trade, never as a scientific reference. Its own wording: "The products mentioned are not intended for human or animal consumption."; "Bodily introduction of any sort is strictly prohibited by law."; "This product is strictly for research/laboratory use only."
- openFDA, queried 16 September 2026: the label, approvals and enforcement endpoints each returned no record, while a control query for semaglutide returned 18 label records. The DailyMed interface returned zero documents for the name on the same day, against nine for the control.
- Health Canada Drug Product Database, active ingredient endpoint, queried 16 September 2026: empty result, against multiple records for the control substance liraglutide.
- European Medicines Agency, complete list of human medicines, downloaded and searched on 16 September 2026: no match for the name or for penetratin, against two, four and nine matches for the three control substances. The agency's interactive search returned an authorisation error that day, so an orphan designation without an approval cannot be fully excluded.
- Swissmedic register of authorised human medicines, local copy of 15 September 2026, searched 16 September 2026: no match, against matches for five control preparation names. The register lists preparations by brand name, and PNC-27 has none.
- Australian Poisons Standard, 2026 edition, full text searched 16 September 2026: no match for the name or for penetratin, against three matches for the control substance ipamorelin. Not being scheduled by name does not make an unregistered injectable lawful to supply, and the national register could not be queried that day.
- Germany, annexes I to III of the narcotics act, full texts retrieved live on 16 September 2026: no entry for the name, for penetratin or for p53, against 38 matches for the control term. An unapproved medicine remains unlawful to place on the market regardless.
- United Kingdom: the medicines regulator's product register could not be queried on 16 September 2026, because the results list loads dynamically and the control query returned the same empty page. The status here is inferred from the worldwide absence of any approval, not from a register match.
- US Food and Drug Administration, "Certain bulk drug substances for use in compounding that may present significant safety risks", full text searched 16 September 2026: no match for the name, while BPC-157, ipamorelin and kisspeptin each appear in the same document.
- Annex to section 2(3) of the German anti-doping act, full text searched 16 September 2026: no entry for the name or for penetratin, against seven matches for the control term. The annex is a closed list of substance groups and has no counterpart to the catch-all doping class.
- Mendias CL, Awan TM (2026). Safety and efficacy of approved and unapproved peptide therapies for musculoskeletal injuries and athletic performance. Sports Med 56(8):1921-1935. PMID 41966639. DOI 10.1007/s40279-026-02437-0. Reviews twelve grey-market peptides; PNC-27 is not among them.
- Bowne WB, Sarafraz-Yazdi E, Michl J, Pincus MR, Zenilman ME, Adler V, et al. (2008). Study of the role of the transport sequence in PNC-28. Ann Surg Oncol 15(12):3588-3600. PMID 18931881. DOI 10.1245/s10434-008-0147-0. Title not reproduced. Records the roles of the neighbouring members of the series, including the control peptide.
- PubChem compound CID 25242319, queried 16 September 2026 for the canonical penetratin sequence, its registry number 188842-14-0 and its substance identifier. Establishes that the transport sequence of PNC-27 differs from it in length and in reading direction.
Cite this page
The facts on this page were checked on 16 September 2026, and every register behind the status table was queried on that day. Two things could still move: the British entry rests on inference rather than a match, and an orphan designation in the European Union cannot be fully excluded.
myPeptides Research & Editing. (2026). PNC-27: status, the FDA warning and what is unknown. Version 1.0, 16 September 2026. myPeptides Peptide Register. Retrieved from https://mypep.app/peptides/pnc-27
How pages in this register are compiled and graded is described under methodology; the full register is at peptides.
| Version | Date | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2026-09-16 | Initial publication |
Last verified: 16 September 2026. Next review: on any registered clinical trial, on any new regulatory action, or on any change to the anti-doping classification.