SNAP-8: what the evidence shows, status and safety
Summary
SNAP-8 is a cosmetic ingredient, not a medicine: an eight-unit fragment of a human nerve protein, used in creams. No peer-reviewed study of the substance itself could be found, and no registered trial either. The best measurement in this field, made by the FDA's own laboratory on the shorter sister peptide, found nothing below the epidermis. The proposed target sits deeper still.
Key findings at a glance
- No peer-reviewed paper on SNAP-8 itself could be found. Searches of the two main biomedical databases on 17 September 2026 returned no original work on the substance, whether on its synthesis, its mechanism or its effect [1].
- The most recent systematic review of this field included no SNAP-8 study. It covered eleven studies and 412 participants across seven other peptides of the same class. SNAP-8 appears in none of them [2].
- No registered trial is findable. A registry query on 17 September 2026 returned zero entries, while a control query for its sister peptide returned six. The search worked; the absence is real [3].
- The FDA's own laboratory measured where the sister peptide goes. From a 10 per cent emulsion on human skin, 0.22 per cent of the applied amount stayed in the outermost horny layer. The epidermis held 0.01 per cent, the dermis nothing at all [4].
- A regulator has called anti-wrinkle claims a drug use. At an expert panel on this peptide class in December 2020, an attending FDA representative said so plainly. An anti-wrinkle use would be a drug use, not a cosmetic one [5].
- The only expert safety assessment that could be found covers the sister peptide, up to 0.005 per cent. Above that concentration the panel recorded the data as insufficient. For Acetyl Octapeptide-3 no such assessment could be found [6].
- It is a cosmetic ingredient in every market checked and a medicine in none. Europe lists it as a humectant and skin conditioning agent [7]; American drug records show it only among inactive ingredients [8].
- No basis for injected use could be found anywhere. No approval, no registered study, no pharmacopoeial standard. What circulates comes from online trade [9].
- It contains no copper. The formula is C41H70N16O16S, with no metal of any kind [10], [11].
- It is not on the 2026 prohibited list in sport [12].
What it is
SNAP-8 is a laboratory-made chain of eight amino acids, sold as a raw material for creams and serums. Its regulatory name is Acetyl Octapeptide-3. The name SNAP-8 is a trade mark, not a scientific designation.
The sequence, EEMQRRAD, is copied from the front end of SNAP-25, a human protein that helps nerve cells release their signalling chemicals. One end of the chain carries an acetyl group, the other an amide. There are no unusual building blocks and no metal [11].
It was developed by Lipotec in Barcelona, now part of Lubrizol, as a longer version of the company's own six-unit peptide Argireline. The underlying patent family, filed in 1999, claims short fragments of SNAP-25 in general; the eight-unit sequence is not named in it [13], [14].
Quick facts
| Field | Value | Ref |
|---|---|---|
| Name | Acetyl Octapeptide-3; SNAP-8 is a trade mark | [7], [11] |
| Other names | Acetyl Glutamyl Heptapeptide-3, Acetyl Glutamyl Heptapeptide-1, Acetyl Octapeptide-1 | [7], [11] |
| Class | Cosmetic ingredient; a synthetic peptide, not a hormone and not a metal complex | [7], [11] |
| Sequence | Ac-Glu-Glu-Met-Gln-Arg-Arg-Ala-Asp-NH2, eight ordinary amino acids | [11] |
| Formula and mass | C41H70N16O16S, 1075.2 g/mol | [10] |
| Half-life | No published figure found, for any route | [1] |
| Declared cosmetic function | Humectant; skin conditioning | [7] |
| Status | Cosmetic ingredient everywhere checked; a medicine nowhere | [7], [8] |
| Developed by | Lipotec, Barcelona, as a longer version of its own six-unit peptide | [14] |
| CAS registry number | 868844-74-0 | [11] |
| PubChem CID | 76283482; a second entry, CID 71587832, is structurally wrong | [10], [15] |
| UNII | 8K14HJF88S | [11] |
| InChIKey | KMACPCJUCHVVGP-FNRPHRCSSA-N | [10] |
How it works
The proposed idea is borrowed from botulinum toxin, but runs the other way round. For SNAP-8 itself, no published measurement of any of the steps below could be found [1].
- The sequence comes from the protein that botulinum toxin attacks. That toxin cuts SNAP-25 inside nerve endings, which blocks the release of acetylcholine and slackens the muscle [16].
- A fragment might get in the way. The proposal is that the peptide competes with the intact protein for a place in the fusion machinery. Less signalling chemical would then be released. Cell experiments show this for the shorter peptide; no equivalent experiment with SNAP-8 could be found [13], [14].
- The concentrations that worked in those experiments were very high. In the patent, a six-unit peptide blocked about 20 per cent of release at 1 millimolar, a thirteen-unit peptide about 35 per cent. The cells had been opened up beforehand, which removes the barrier that matters on skin [14].
- The peptide would have to travel a long way. It would need to cross the horny layer, the living epidermis and the dermis, and still arrive in useful amounts. The one careful measurement in this field found nothing below the epidermis [4].
- Formulation changes the numbers a little, not the picture. A multiple emulsion carried more of the sister peptide into pig-ear skin than simple emulsions did, but the absolute amounts stayed small [17]. Related work on other fragments succeeded only by opening the cells or attaching a transport helper [18].
- A simpler explanation is available. In Europe the declared functions of this ingredient are moisture retention and skin conditioning, not muscle relaxation. Swelling of the horny layer alone can soften the look of fine lines [7].
A 2025 review of the better-studied sister peptide puts the position plainly. Its ability to reach the junction between nerve and muscle remains uncertain, and none of the studies in living skin that the review examined confirmed an effect on muscle contraction [19].
What the trials found
No trial of SNAP-8 could be found to report. The question on this page is therefore not what the studies showed, but what is in their place.
Studies of SNAP-8 on its own
Registry check A query of the American trial registry on 17 September 2026 returned zero studies for SNAP-8 and zero for Acetyl Octapeptide-3. A control query for Argireline returned six entries on the same day, so the interface was working [3].
Literature search Searches of the biomedical databases on the same day found no original paper on the substance. The substance appears in the literature almost only in lists of cosmetic peptides and in ingredient tables of multi-ingredient products [1].
American trial registry, API v2, queried 17 September 2026. The zero for SNAP-8 is a genuine absence rather than a failed query: the control search for the shorter sister peptide Argireline, run the same day through the same interface, returned six entries. Source [3].
The gap in the most recent review
Systematic review In 2026 a systematic review examined topical peptides marketed as needle-free alternatives to injection. It included eleven studies with 412 participants, seven of them randomised and controlled [2].
The peptides covered were Acetyl Hexapeptide-8, Leuphasyl, Syn-Ake, Myoxinol, Acetyl Hexapeptide-3, a newer receptor peptide and Pentapeptide-3. SNAP-8 is in none of them. For the peptides it did cover, the review found measurable wrinkle reduction, while noting that it does not match injected botulinum toxin [2].
Where the peptide actually ends up
In vitro, human cadaver skin The most dependable measurement in this field was made by the FDA's own laboratory on the six-unit sister peptide. A 10 per cent emulsion was applied at 2 mg per square centimetre for 24 hours and the skin was then analysed layer by layer [4].
Most of the material washed off. In human skin 0.22 per cent of the applied amount remained in the horny layer and 0.01 per cent in the epidermis. In guinea pig skin the horny layer held 0.54 per cent. No peptide was detected in the dermis or in the fluid beneath the skin, and neither was its breakdown product [4].
FDA laboratory measurement on the six-unit sister peptide Acetyl Hexapeptide-8, not on SNAP-8: an emulsion containing 10 per cent peptide, applied at 2 mg per square centimetre to human cadaver skin and to guinea pig skin for 24 hours, then analysed layer by layer by mass spectrometry. The proposed target sits below the dermis. SNAP-8 is two units larger. Source [4].
Studies in which SNAP-8 is one ingredient of several
Split-face comparison A 2024 study gave 24 healthy participants a dissolving microneedle patch overnight, with a plain hyaluronic acid patch on the other side, and followed them for 28 days. The active patch did better on eye wrinkles, water loss, elasticity and lifting, with no adverse effects and no percentages given in the abstract [20].
That patch held three actives besides the carrier, and the comparison patch held none of them. Any difference could belong to any of the three, or to the needling itself. Four of the five authors are affiliated with the patch manufacturer, although the paper declares nothing to disclose [20].
Uncontrolled study A 2020 study over 12 weeks used a patch with five actives and had no control group at all. Fine lines and wrinkles fell by 25.8 per cent and skin moisture rose by 15.4 per cent [21].
Skin density rose by 14.2 per cent and skin thickness by 12.9 per cent over the same period. The authors themselves only suggest that the ingredients may have worked together [21].
What is still unknown
- Whether the peptide reaches anything. No penetration measurement for SNAP-8 itself could be found; every figure above belongs to a shorter molecule [1], [4].
- Whether it affects muscle at all. No direct demonstration in people could be found, for any peptide of this class [19].
- What it does on its own. No study comparing SNAP-8 against a plain base could be found [1].
- How safe it is. No irritation, sensitisation, genotoxicity or systemic toxicity data for this ingredient could be found [6].
- What happens beyond 12 weeks. No longer study in which the substance appears could be found [20], [21].
- How much sits in finished products. No authority survey reporting use concentrations for this ingredient could be found [6].
Side effects and safety
Nothing specific is documented, because no examination of the substance on its own could be found. The empty record here reflects a missing one, not a clean one.
- No safety assessment of SNAP-8 could be found. Neither the American expert panel for cosmetic ingredients nor the European scientific committee has published one on Acetyl Octapeptide-3, checked on 17 September 2026. The control case shows the gap is real: the same search returns a complete assessment for the sister peptide [6].
- That assessment is bound to a concentration. It calls the sister peptide safe up to 0.005 per cent, with the data insufficient above that. The reassurance rests on the small amount, not on positive safety findings [6].
- The panel was told the real numbers may be far higher. A report reached the December 2020 meeting that material of this class was being marketed at up to 10 to 30 per cent. The chair noted that irritation and sensitisation data at that level were absent [5].
- Both patch studies reported no adverse effects. Neither can say anything about the single ingredient, because both products contained several [20], [21].
- For this class of ingredient, classical toxicity studies are mostly missing. A 2026 framework paper describes computer screening tools stepping in where animal and human data are absent [22].
- For injection no safety basis could be found at all. No human data, no animal data, no sterility or endotoxin standard, no pharmacopoeial monograph [9].
Contraindications cannot be listed for the same reason. No clinical examination of the substance could be found, so none are documented, and that silence carries no reassurance.
Why this page lists no doses
This page gives no amounts for SNAP-8, in any unit and for any route. A cosmetic ingredient has no dose. It has a share in a recipe, which cannot be converted into an amount for a person [7].
There is also nothing to cite. Neither the literature search nor the registry query of 17 September 2026 found any description of how this substance is applied. Any figure would therefore come from trade material rather than from research [1], [3].
Three concentration figures do appear in the record. Each is a share in a recipe or a study preparation, and none is an amount for a person. The 2002 work on the sister peptide used an emulsion containing 10 per cent peptide, applied daily for 30 days [13].
A trade data sheet describes a SNAP-8 solution holding 0.05 per cent peptide, intended for blending into a finished recipe at 3 to 10 per cent [23]. For the sister peptide, the expert panel recorded a highest reported concentration of 0.005 per cent in leave-on products [6]. Both figures describe what is in a jar, not what reaches a person.
Injected use is a separate matter. Online trade decants cosmetic raw material into 10 mg vials and adds instructions of its own. Those figures come from sales pages, not from studies, and are not reproduced here [9].
Development and approval status
SNAP-8 was never developed as a medicine. It went straight from a patent family to a cosmetic raw material, and every register check on 17 September 2026 confirms that position.
From a patent claim to an empty registry entry
- 1999The patent is filedA family covering short SNAP-25 fragments is filed in April; the eight-unit sequence is not named in it, ref [14]
- 2002The sister peptide is publishedThe six-unit Argireline is described in a cosmetic science journal, the only peer-reviewed first description in this line, ref [13]
- 2015The FDA laboratory measures penetrationLayer-by-layer analysis finds 0.22 per cent in the horny layer and nothing in the dermis, ref [4]
- 2020A regulator draws the lineAt an expert panel meeting in December, an FDA representative calls an anti-wrinkle use a drug use, ref [5]
- 2025The sister peptide is assessedThe published assessment calls it safe up to 0.005 per cent and the data insufficient above that, ref [6]
- 2026A systematic review includes nothingEleven studies and 412 participants across seven other peptides; SNAP-8 appears in none, ref [2]
- 2026Registers checkedOn 17 September: no registered study, no approved medicine, cosmetic listing only, refs [3], [7], [8]
- 1999 a patent family covering short fragments of SNAP-25 is filed, with data from opened-up cells rather than from skin [14].
- 2002 the six-unit sister peptide is first described in a peer-reviewed journal [13].
- 2015 the FDA's own laboratory publishes the layer-by-layer penetration measurement [4].
- December 2020 an expert panel discusses where the line between cosmetic and drug claims runs for this class [5].
- 2025 the assessment of the sister peptide appears in final, concentration-bound form [6].
- 2026 a systematic review of the whole field includes no SNAP-8 study [2].
- 17 September 2026 registry, approval and cosmetic listing checks are run for this page [3], [7], [8].
| Market | Status | Since or note |
|---|---|---|
| United States | Cosmetic | Inactive ingredient only |
| European Union | Cosmetic | Listed, unrestricted |
| Germany | Cosmetic | European rules apply |
| United Kingdom | Cosmetic | Assimilated rules |
| Australia | Chemical | Industrial scheme |
| Canada | Unapproved | No drug entry |
| Switzerland | Cosmetic | Food law, not medicines law |
Two entries rest on register queries run with a control substance in the same database. A blank result there means absence, not a broken query [8], [24]. The European and British entries rest on the ingredient listing and on the regulations that carry it over [7], [25].
Two entries are weaker and are marked as such. The Australian position is a failure to find rather than a verified absence, because the primary texts were unreachable [26]. The Swiss position rests on secondary descriptions of the cosmetics ordinance [27].
One finding cuts across all seven markets. Cosmetic ingredients need no pre-market approval anywhere checked. The FDA says so in plain words: neither the law nor its regulations require specific tests for individual ingredients [28]. Legality on the shelf is therefore not a safety verdict.
The claim decides the category. A cosmetic is defined by its intended use, read from labelling, advertising and websites. A product that claims to affect a bodily function becomes a drug [29].
SNAP-8 appears in no American list of bulk substances nominated for pharmacy compounding, which fits a substance never meant as a medicine [30]. The wider picture is under are peptides legal and FDA-approved peptides.
That boundary is not theoretical. In November 2025 the FDA sent 18 warning letters over the illegal marketing of unapproved botulinum toxin products [31].
Material from unauthorised channels, the agency noted, may be unapproved, counterfeit or contaminated [31]. That is the market segment in which needle-free wording operates. The common European framework and its claims rules are set out by the Commission [32].
Anti-doping
SNAP-8 is not on the 2026 prohibited list. The full text was searched on 17 September 2026 with no match for the substance or its class. A control term returned ten matches, so the search worked [12].
As a cream ingredient it raises no anti-doping question at all. An injected preparation claiming an effect on the body would be judged differently. The catch-all class S0 covers substances with no current approval by any government health authority for human use [12].
That would be a legal reading rather than a decision by any anti-doping body, and no such case was found. The annex to the German anti-doping statute does not list the substance either [33]. The full picture is at peptides banned in sport.
Compared with related peptides
| Substance | How it is proposed to act | Human evidence | Ref |
|---|---|---|---|
| SNAP-8 | Fragment of a nerve protein, meant to hinder signal release | None on its own | [1], [3] |
| Argireline | Same principle, two units shorter | One 2002 report, no control group stated | [13] |
| Pentapeptide-3 | Blocks the receptor on the muscle side | Covered by the 2026 review | [2] |
| GHK-Cu | Copper complex, proposed to act on repair processes | See its own page | — |
| Botulinum toxin A | Cuts the nerve protein inside the nerve ending, injected | Approved medicine, large evidence base | [16] |
The comparison is useful mainly as a ranking of evidence. Argireline has a first description, penetration measurements and an expert assessment behind it. For SNAP-8 the same searches found the family resemblance and none of those three [13], [4], [6].
The gap to the injected comparator is one of place rather than of degree. Botulinum toxin is delivered into the muscle. The peptides are left on the surface, which is where the careful measurement on the sister peptide finds it staying [16], [4].
The 2026 review is the fairest summary available. For the peptides it could include, it found real but modest wrinkle reduction with a good safety record. It also stated that this does not match injection. SNAP-8 was not among them [2].
Common misconceptions
- "SNAP-8 is a copper peptide." It contains no copper and no other metal. The formula is C41H70N16O16S, and the substance is registered as a protein made of eight ordinary amino acids [10], [11].
- "It is botulinum toxin in a jar." They share a protein in theory, not an effect in practice. One is an enzyme injected into muscle. The other is a fragment left on the skin, and the best measurement in this field does not find it in the dermis [16], [4].
- "It is clinically proven to reduce wrinkles by a large percentage." The figure in circulation comes from trade material and describes a best case rather than an average. It arrives without participant numbers, study length, a control group or any measure of spread [23], [1].
- "SNAP-8 and Argireline are the same thing." They differ by two amino acids, and that matters. Nearly all the usable literature, the penetration work and the safety assessment included, concerns Argireline [13], [6].
- "The different names mean different substances." Acetyl Octapeptide-3, Acetyl Glutamyl Heptapeptide-3 and Acetyl Glutamyl Heptapeptide-1 all describe one molecule under different naming conventions [7], [11].
- "A 10 mg vial means it is an injectable product." The packaging is a commercial decision. Cosmetic raw material carries no sterility testing, no endotoxin limit at injection level and no specification for residues left over from synthesis [9].
- "Being legal in cosmetics means it has been assessed as safe." No market checked requires pre-market approval for cosmetic ingredients. No panel has assessed this one [6], [28].
- "The database entry settles the chemistry." Two public entries carry this name. The correct one, CID 76283482, shows all eight peptide bonds; the other, CID 71587832, is drawn with a carbon-carbon double bond where one peptide bond belongs, which is why its formula carries one carbon and two hydrogens more and one oxygen less. The American substance register points at exactly that faulty entry [10], [15].
Frequently asked questions
What is SNAP-8?
It is a synthetic eight-unit peptide sold as a cosmetic ingredient under the name Acetyl Octapeptide-3. Its sequence is copied from a human nerve protein called SNAP-25. In Europe it is listed as a humectant and a skin conditioning agent. It is not a medicine in any market checked.
Does SNAP-8 work like botulinum toxin?
The idea was borrowed from it, the evidence was not. Botulinum toxin is an enzyme injected into muscle, where it cuts the SNAP-25 protein inside nerve endings. SNAP-8 is a fragment of that same protein, spread on the skin surface. No study measuring either effect for SNAP-8 in people could be found.
How many studies have been done on SNAP-8?
None that test it on its own. No peer-reviewed paper on the substance itself could be found. A search of the American trial registry on 17 September 2026 returned no registered study, while a control search for its sister peptide returned six. SNAP-8 appears only as one ingredient among several in two patch studies.
Is SNAP-8 a copper peptide?
No. Its molecular formula, C41H70N16O16S, contains no copper and no other metal. It is eight ordinary amino acids joined in a chain, with an acetyl group at one end and an amide at the other. The confusion probably comes from GHK-Cu, the best-known cosmetic peptide raw material.
Is SNAP-8 the same as Argireline?
They are close relatives, not the same substance. Argireline is Acetyl Hexapeptide-8, six units long; SNAP-8 is the same sequence with two more units at the end. Both came from the same laboratory. Almost all the usable literature in this field, including the penetration measurements, concerns Argireline.
Can SNAP-8 reach the muscle when rubbed on the skin?
There is no measurement for SNAP-8 itself. For the shorter sister peptide, the FDA's own laboratory found 0.22 per cent of the applied amount in the outermost horny layer. The epidermis held 0.01 per cent and the dermis none at all. SNAP-8 is larger, so it is unlikely to do better.
Is SNAP-8 approved or tested for safety?
It is legal in cosmetics, which is not the same thing. Cosmetic ingredients need no pre-market approval in any market checked. No expert panel assessment of Acetyl Octapeptide-3 could be found. The one assessment that exists covers the sister peptide and holds only up to a concentration of 0.005 per cent.
Is injectable SNAP-8 legal?
No market checked has approved an injectable form, and no study of one could be found. What circulates is cosmetic raw material decanted into 10 mg vials. That packaging is a commercial decision, not a quality statement: sterility, endotoxin limits and residual solvents are not specified for cosmetic-grade material.
Is SNAP-8 banned in sport?
It is not on the 2026 prohibited list, checked by full text with a working control search. As a cosmetic applied to the skin it raises no anti-doping question at all. An injected preparation claiming a bodily effect would fall differently, because the catch-all class covers substances with no health-authority approval.
Where does the wrinkle-reduction figure for SNAP-8 come from?
From trade material, not from a journal. The widely repeated figure appears on a distributor data sheet without participant numbers, study length, a control group or any measure of spread. It also describes a best case rather than an average. No publication behind it could be retrieved.
Sources
- Literature search on SNAP-8 and Acetyl Octapeptide-3, run on 17 September 2026 through the PubMed programming interface and Europe PMC. No original work on the substance itself was found, whether on synthesis, mechanism, penetration or effect. The substance appears in the literature in lists of cosmetic peptides and in the ingredient tables of multi-ingredient products. Every quantitative figure quoted on this page for a peptide of this class therefore belongs to a different, shorter molecule, and is marked as such where it appears.
- Aung PZ, Nararatwanchai T (2026). NoTox Tweakments: evidence for topical neurocosmetic peptides as needle-free neuromodulators for facial wrinkle reduction — a systematic review. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 25(9):e71137. PMCID PMC13504718. DOI 10.1111/jocd.71137. Eleven studies, 412 participants, seven of them randomised and controlled. Peptides covered: Acetyl Hexapeptide-8, Leuphasyl, Syn-Ake, Myoxinol, Acetyl Hexapeptide-3, a newer receptor peptide and Pentapeptide-3. SNAP-8 is in none of the included studies. Several included datasets are marked as manufacturer data and carry a high risk of bias.
- ClinicalTrials.gov, programming interface v2, queried 17 September 2026.
query.intr=SNAP-8returned a total of 0; a full-text query for "acetyl octapeptide" or "SNAP-8" also returned 0. The control query for argireline returned 6 entries the same day through the same interface. https://clinicaltrials.gov/api/v2/studies?query.intr=SNAP-8 - Kraeling MEK, Zhou W, Wang P, Ogunsola OA (2015). In vitro skin penetration of acetyl hexapeptide-8 from a cosmetic formulation. Cutaneous and Ocular Toxicology 34(1):46-52. PMID 24754410. DOI 10.3109/15569527.2014.894521. Work of the FDA's own laboratory on the six-unit sister peptide, not on SNAP-8. Emulsion with 10 per cent peptide, 2 mg per square centimetre, 24 hours, human cadaver skin and hairless guinea pig skin, quantified by mass spectrometry with isotope-labelled internal standards.
- Cosmetic Ingredient Review (2021). Safety assessment of Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 Amide as used in cosmetics, draft final report for panel review, released 16 February 2021, with the team meeting minutes of 7 December 2020. Retrieved 17 September 2026. The document is marked for comment only, so its content is given here in substance rather than as quotation, and the published conclusion is cited under entry 6. The minutes record the director's position that anti-wrinkle creams are a drug use, the attending FDA representative's agreement, the chair's remark that irritation and sensitisation data are absent at high concentrations, and a report that material of this class was being marketed at up to 10 to 30 per cent.
- Johnson W Jr, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, Cohen DE, Klaassen CD, Liebler DC, et al. (2025). Safety assessment of Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 Amide as used in cosmetics. International Journal of Toxicology 44(2_suppl):54S-63S. PMID 40673537. DOI 10.1177/10915818251340391. Published conclusion on the sister peptide: safe up to 0.005 per cent, with the data insufficient above that concentration. No equivalent assessment for Acetyl Octapeptide-3 could be found, checked the same day; the control case shows the gap is genuine.
- European Commission cosmetic ingredient database, reference number 54131, "Acetyl Octapeptide-3", with the entry 24088 of the COSMILE Europe database run by Cosmetics Europe. Both retrieved 17 September 2026. Declared functions: humectant and skin conditioning; no restriction listed. The Commission database is a browser application whose detail page could not be read directly, so the reference number and the field values rest on the COSMILE entry and on search results.
- openFDA drug endpoints, queried 17 September 2026. The approved-drug endpoint returned no match for the substance name. The label endpoint returned 46 records, all over-the-counter products in which Acetyl Octapeptide-3 appears among inactive ingredients, never as an active one; the control query for semaglutide returned 18 records with the substance as an active ingredient. https://api.fda.gov/drug/label.json?search=%22acetyl+octapeptide%22
- Online trade listings for injectable "SNAP-8", retrieved 17 September 2026, used only as evidence of how the material is marketed and never as a scientific reference. They show cosmetic raw material decanted into 10 mg vials with research-use labelling and instructions of their own. No approval, no study, no pharmacopoeial standard and no pharmaceutical quality specification exists for any injectable form. Cosmetic-grade material is not specified for sterility, for endotoxins at injection level or for residues left over from peptide synthesis.
- PubChem compound CID 76283482, queried 17 September 2026 for formula, mass, key and structure: C41H70N16O16S, 1075.2 g/mol, InChIKey KMACPCJUCHVVGP-FNRPHRCSSA-N, with eight intact peptide bonds in the deposited structure. Resolves through the registry number 868844-74-0. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/76283482
- FDA Global Substance Registration System, unique ingredient identifier 8K14HJF88S, full record retrieved 17 September 2026. Substance class protein, subunit sequence EEMQRRAD, acetylated at the front end, with the systematic name Ac-Glu-Glu-Met-Gln-Arg-Arg-Ala-Asp-NH2 and the registry number 868844-74-0. Lists Acetyl Glutamyl Heptapeptide-3 and Acetyl Octapeptide-1 as synonyms. The registered status refers to substance identity, not to any medicine approval. https://gsrs.ncats.nih.gov/
- World Anti-Doping Agency, The 2026 Prohibited List, in force 1 January 2026. Full text searched on 17 September 2026: no match for octapeptide, hexapeptide, SNAP, argireline or botulinum, against 10 matches for the control term peptide. Class S0 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".
- Blanes-Mira C, Clemente J, Jodas G, Gil A, Fernández-Ballester G, Ponsati B, et al. (2002). A synthetic hexapeptide (Argireline) with antiwrinkle activity. International Journal of Cosmetic Science 24(5):303-310. PMID 18498523. DOI 10.1046/j.1467-2494.2002.00153.x. First description of the six-unit sister peptide, not of SNAP-8. An emulsion with 10 per cent peptide on healthy women volunteers "reduced wrinkle depth up to 30% upon 30 days treatment"; the abstract gives no participant number, no control group, no measure of spread and no p value.
- European patent application EP 1180524 A1, "Neuronal exocytosis inhibiting peptides and cosmetic and pharmaceutical compositions", applicant Lipotec SA, priority 23 April 1999, retrieved 17 September 2026. Claims peptides of 3 to 30 adjacent amino acids from the front region of SNAP-25. Data from permeabilised chromaffin cells: a six-unit peptide blocked approximately 20 per cent of release at 1 millimolar, a thirteen-unit peptide approximately 35 per cent, and a combination of a front and an end peptide 55 per cent at 0.5 millimolar each. The eight-unit sequence is not named in the document. https://patents.google.com/patent/EP1180524A1/en
- PubChem compound CID 71587832, queried 17 September 2026. A second entry under the same name, carrying C42H72N16O15S and 1073.2 g/mol. One of the eight peptide bonds is drawn as a carbon-carbon double bond instead of an amide, visible in the structure string and in the chemical name. The difference to the correct entry matches exactly one missing carbonyl oxygen. Cited here as evidence of the error; the substance register's own code list points at this entry.
- Benoit RM, Frey D, Hilbert M, Kevenaar JT, Wieser MM, Stirnimann CU, et al. (2014). Structural basis for recognition of synaptic vesicle protein 2C by botulinum neurotoxin A. Nature 505(7481):108-111. PMID 24240280. DOI 10.1038/nature12732. Source for the biological context of the sequence: the toxin "causes long-lasting flaccid paralysis of muscles through inhibiting the release of the neurotransmitter acetylcholine by cleaving synaptosomal-associated protein 25 (SNAP-25) within presynaptic nerve terminals".
- Hoppel M, Reznicek G, Kählig H, Kotisch H, Resch GP, Valenta C (2015). Topical delivery of acetyl hexapeptide-8 from different emulsions: influence of emulsion composition and internal structure. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 68:27-35. PMID 25497319. DOI 10.1016/j.ejps.2014.12.006. A multiple emulsion increased penetration into pig-ear skin significantly against simple emulsions, with absolute amounts staying low. Concerns the sister peptide.
- Yang Y, Kong B, Jung Y, Park JB, Oh JM, Hwang J, et al. (2018). SNARE-derived peptides for regulation of mast cell degranulation. Frontiers in Immunology 9:725. PMID 29696021. DOI 10.3389/fimmu.2018.00725. Fragments of two other proteins of the same machinery reduced release by interfering with complex formation, but only after the cells were opened up or a transport helper was attached. Evidence for the principle, not for use on skin.
- Zdrada-Nowak J, Surgiel-Gemza A, Szatkowska M (2025). Acetyl hexapeptide-8 in cosmeceuticals — a review of skin permeability and efficacy. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 26(12):5722. PMID 40565185. DOI 10.3390/ijms26125722. Full text read. "The ability of AH-8 to reach neuromuscular junctions remains uncertain"; "None of the aforementioned in vivo application studies confirmed the peptide's inhibitory effect on muscle contractions." SNAP-8 is not covered in the review.
- Shin JY, Han D, Yoon KY, Jeong DH, Park YI (2024). Clinical safety and efficacy evaluation of a dissolving microneedle patch having dual anti-wrinkle effects with safe and long-term activities. Annals of Dermatology 36(4):215-224. PMID 39082657. DOI 10.5021/ad.23.136. 24 healthy participants, active patch against a plain hyaluronic acid patch, applied overnight, 28 days of follow-up. The active patch carried Acetyl Octapeptide-3 plus two further actives, so no effect can be assigned to any single one. Four of the five authors are affiliated with the patch manufacturer, while the paper declares nothing to disclose.
- Avcil M, Akman G, Klokkers J, Jeong D, Çelik A (2020). Efficacy of bioactive peptides loaded on hyaluronic acid microneedle patches: a monocentric clinical study. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology 19(2):328-337. PMID 31134751. DOI 10.1111/jocd.13009. Single-centre, open study over 12 weeks without a control group; the product held five actives including Acetyl Octapeptide-3. Fine lines and wrinkles -25.8 per cent, skin moisture +15.4 per cent, skin density +14.2 per cent, skin thickness +12.9 per cent, with no skin reactions. Authors come from the commissioning test institute and the manufacturer.
- Bjerke DL, Li J, Gao Y, Hu P, Lintner K, Hakozaki T (2026). A framework for the safety evaluation of peptides in cosmetics. Current Research in Toxicology 10:100291. PMID 41953401. DOI 10.1016/j.crtox.2026.100291. Describes how computer screening tools are used for this class of ingredient where classical toxicity studies do not exist. Five of the six authors are employed by a consumer goods manufacturer.
- Distributor data sheet for a SNAP-8 peptide solution, retrieved 17 September 2026; trade material, cited only as evidence of the claims in circulation and of the raw material specification. Declared composition water, Acetyl Octapeptide-3 and caprylyl glycol, holding 0.05 per cent peptide, for use at 3 to 10 per cent of a finished recipe. It reproduces a wrinkle figure and a comparison against the sister peptide, both without participant number, study length, control group, mean or measure of spread; the underlying manufacturer document could not be retrieved, and the figures are therefore not reproduced on this page.
- Health Canada drug product database, active ingredient endpoint, queried 17 September 2026: no entry for octapeptide, against results for the control term insulin. The Canadian cosmetic ingredient hotlist was also queried and returned no entry, but the control term botulinum toxin returned none either, so that retrieval was incomplete and the cosmetic finding is not treated as verified.
- The Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/1478), regulation 2, full text retrieved 17 September 2026. Carries the European cosmetics regulation into British law and names the enforcement authorities. The substance is neither prohibited nor restricted there, and no British medicine authorisation exists. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1478/regulation/2
- Australia: cosmetic ingredients are industrial chemicals under the national introduction scheme, while a product carrying therapeutic claims becomes a therapeutic good under the medicines authority. Checked 17 September 2026. Both authority websites were unreachable from this environment and the poisons standard could not be downloaded, so the absence of a scheduling entry is a failure to find rather than a verified negative finding.
- Switzerland: cosmetic products fall under food law and the federal ordinance on cosmetic products, with enforcement by the cantonal authorities, while a product advertised as a remedy falls under medicines law. Checked 17 September 2026. The ordinance text is only reachable through a browser application and the responsible office's guidance page returned a server error, so this entry rests on secondary descriptions.
- FDA, "Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022", retrieved 17 September 2026. Obligations: facility registration, product listing with ingredients, adequate safety substantiation, reporting of serious adverse events within 15 working days. On the reach of that regime: "Neither the law nor FDA regulations require specific tests to demonstrate the safety of individual products or ingredients."
- FDA, "Is it a cosmetic, a drug, or both? (Or is it soap?)", retrieved 17 September 2026. A cosmetic is defined as articles "intended to be rubbed, poured, sprinkled, or sprayed on … for cleansing, beautifying, promoting attractiveness, or altering the appearance"; a drug as articles "intended to affect the structure or any function of the body". The intended use is read from "claims stated on the product labeling, in advertising, on the Internet, or in other promotional materials".
- FDA, "Bulk drug substances nominated for use in compounding under section 503A", version of 14 May 2026, full text checked 17 September 2026: no match for octapeptide, hexapeptide or argireline in any of the three categories, against 6 matches for the control term GHK in the same file.
- FDA press release of 5 November 2025, 18 warning letters over the illegal marketing of unapproved and misbranded botulinum toxin products. Context for the market segment rather than a source on SNAP-8. "Products purchased from unauthorized sources may be unapproved, misbranded, adulterated, counterfeit, contaminated, improperly stored and transported, ineffective and/or unsafe."
- European Commission, "Cosmetics — legislation", retrieved 17 September 2026. Names Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 as the main framework for finished cosmetic products on the European market and Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 as the act laying down common criteria for the justification of claims. Obligations: a safety report before placing on the market, a responsible person in the Union, notification through the central portal. No pre-market approval of ingredients. The consolidated legal texts themselves could not be read, because the official database blocks automated access.
- Annex to section 2(3) of the German anti-doping act, official citation BGBl. 2023 I no. 67, full text checked 17 September 2026: no entry for octapeptide, for SNAP or for botulinum, against a complete text containing the sections on peptide hormones, growth factors and metabolic modulators.
Cite this page
The facts on this page were checked on 17 September 2026, and every register behind the status table was queried that day. Two points could still move: an assessment of this ingredient could be published, and the Australian and Swiss entries rest on secondary material rather than on primary texts.
myPeptides Research & Editing. (2026). SNAP-8: what the evidence shows, status and safety. Version 1.0, 17 September 2026. myPeptides Peptide Register. Retrieved from https://mypep.app/peptides/snap-8
How pages in this register are compiled and graded is described under methodology; the full register is at peptides.
| Version | Date | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2026-09-17 | Initial publication |
Last verified: 17 September 2026. Next review: on any peer-reviewed publication on the substance itself, on any registered study, or on any expert safety assessment of Acetyl Octapeptide-3.