Two different things
Peptides vs bioregulators
Both are short amino acid chains, but they are not variations on one idea — they are proposed to act at completely different places in the cell.
Targeted synthetic & regenerative peptides
Short to medium chains — BPC-157, Thymosin alpha-1, GHK-Cu, MOTS-c and the rest. They bind receptors on the cell surface, usually G-protein coupled receptors, to drive acute tissue repair, immune activation or a metabolic shift. Effects tend to be fast and local.
Natural organ-specific bioregulators
Khavinson peptides: just two to four amino acids, extracted from calf organs or synthesised to match the natural sequence. Small enough to survive digestion and reach the cell nucleus, where they are proposed to act on gene expression directly rather than through a receptor — and to act selectively on the organ they came from.
Start anywhere
What are you curious about?
Pick a theme to filter the peptide library. Bioregulators are organised by target organ in their own section below.
The broad family
Peptides
The Russian short-peptide family
Bioregulators
Two to four amino acids each, one organ apiece. The evidence base is narrower than above and leans heavily on a single research group — every entry says so.
The evidence base
What has actually been measured
The bioregulator literature makes some striking claims. They are worth knowing — and worth grading, because they do not all carry the same weight. Each block is labelled by study type, strongest design first, with what is and is not known about it.
Long-term controlled studiesKhavinson's long-term Russian mortality trials
- Design
- Prospective, controlled, elderly cohorts
- Endpoint
- All-cause mortality — a hard outcome, not a marker
- Duration
- 12 years and 6 years
- Cohort size
- Not stated in our source material — unverified
- Replication
- None independent of the originating group
- Primary citation
- Not yet verified against the original papers
- A 12-year trial in people aged 60–74 using the pineal bioregulator reported 12-year all-cause mortality falling from 44% in controls to 22%.
- A 6-year trial in people aged 75–89 combining pineal and thymus bioregulators reported mortality falling from 82% in controls to 33%.
How much to trust it: these are genuine long-term controlled studies with hard endpoints — death, not a surrogate marker — which puts them well above everything below. The catch is that they come from the group that developed the compounds, the cohorts were small, and no independent team outside Russia has replicated them in the decades since.
Large occupational cohortThe Gazprom occupational study
- Design
- Occupational cohort, not randomised or blinded
- Endpoint
- Reported illness and sick leave — soft, self-reported
- Duration
- 12 months
- Cohort size
- ~11,000 workers
- Replication
- None independent
- Primary citation
- Not yet verified against the original report
- Around 11,000 Siberian gas workers given a six-bioregulator complex over 12 months.
- Reported a 2.7-fold reduction in acute respiratory illness and a 2.3-fold reduction in total morbidity.
How much to trust it: the scale is real and unusual for this field. But an occupational cohort study is not a randomised trial, sick-day reporting is a soft endpoint, and the same replication problem applies.
Unpublished practitioner dataUS practitioner-reported biomarker data
- Design
- Uncontrolled observation, no comparison group
- Endpoint
- Surrogate markers — telomere assay and epigenetic clock
- Duration
- 2–3 years
- Cohort size
- 100+, largely self-selected physicians
- Replication
- Unpublished and not peer reviewed
- Primary citation
- None — reported by the practitioner directly
- Dr Bill Lawrence reports tracking 100+ US participants, mostly physicians, on Khavinson protocols.
- Reported an average telomere length gain equivalent to 21.62 years over 3 years.
- Reported an average epigenetic age reduction of 4.67 years over 2 years on the Horvath clock, which the source converts to a 56% lower all-cause mortality risk.
How much to trust it: treat these as preliminary. The figures are self-reported by a practitioner rather than published and peer-reviewed, there is no control group, and both telomere assays and epigenetic clocks are surrogate markers with wide measurement variability — a clock reading is not a lifespan. The mortality figure is a statistical conversion from that surrogate, not an observed death rate, so it is a projection rather than a result.
Individual case reportsIndividual case reports
- Design
- Single cases, no controls, outcomes selected after the fact
- Endpoint
- Varies by case
- Cohort size
- One each; one is a dog
- Replication
- None
- Primary citation
- None verified
- Visual field recovery in diabetic retinopathy, macular degeneration and retinitis pigmentosa on a retina, vessel and CNS stack.
- GFR stabilisation and dialysis avoided for 18+ months in stage 5 chronic kidney disease.
- Restored hand mobility and deep sleep in advanced multiple sclerosis.
- Full structural healing of five shoulder tendon tears after five monthly BPC-157 and TB-500 injections, without surgery.
- A dog in stage 4 kidney failure returning to near-normal bloodwork in three weeks.
How much to trust it: single cases are the weakest form of clinical evidence. They cannot separate the treatment from natural fluctuation, other interventions, or the fact that cases which go nowhere rarely get written up. They are a reason to run a trial, not a substitute for one.
On the safety claim. The source material states that across 100,000+ tracked monthly doses and decades of Russian use, the oral bioregulators have shown zero adverse effects and no drug interactions. What that supports is narrower than it sounds: no adverse effects have been reported in largely uncontrolled use. That is not the same as a long-term independent safety study, which has not been done. These are animal-derived supplements with undisclosed exact composition, and “no reported harm” is a weaker statement than “proven safe.”
Practical
Routes, mixing and storage
A compound that never reaches the bloodstream intact does nothing. How these behave as materials — what dissolves them, what degrades them, how they enter the body — is documented chemistry, and it is worth knowing before reading anything into a result.
↓
Why route decides everything
Peptides are chains of amino acids, and the digestive system exists to break exactly those down. Stomach acid and gut enzymes destroy most of them before absorption, which is why subcutaneous injection is the default for this class — it bypasses digestion entirely.
The exceptions are informative. Bioregulators are oral precisely because two to four amino acids are short enough to pass through intact. GHK-Cu is topical because the target is skin. Semax and Selank are nasal because that route reaches the brain directly. Every entry now lists its route.
◊
Reconstitution
Most injectable peptides ship as a lyophilised (freeze-dried) powder, which is the stable form. They are dissolved before use, and the diluent matters: bacteriostatic water contains 0.9% benzyl alcohol as a preservative, which is what permits repeated withdrawals from one vial. Plain sterile water has no preservative and is single-use.
This is why bacteriostatic water has its own entry in the library despite not being a peptide.
❄
Storage
The dry powder is the durable form — broadly stable for a year or more frozen, and for months refrigerated. Once reconstituted the clock starts: refrigerated at 2–8 °C and used within roughly a month is the common guidance, and shorter for GLP-1 class compounds.
Heat, light and repeated freeze–thaw cycles degrade peptides — this is well established for peptide drugs generally. A degraded vial looks identical to a fresh one, so appearance tells you nothing.
∞
DAC and half-life
DAC (Drug Affinity Complex) attaches a linker that binds covalently to albumin in the blood. Because albumin circulates for weeks, this stretches a peptide’s half-life from around half an hour to several days.
Longer is not automatically better. The body releases growth hormone in pulses, and the no-DAC versions — like the CJC-1295 in this library — preserve that pulsing pattern, where continuous elevation can flatten it. Which matters depends on whether you are chasing a lab number or a physiological rhythm.
Handling information, not a protocol. This section covers how these compounds behave as materials — what degrades them, what dissolves them, how they enter the body. It is not instruction to use any of them, and it carries no amounts. Most compounds in this library are not approved for human use.
Field guide
How to read these entries
★
What studies report
Findings from published animal or human research — results observed under study conditions, not predictions about what a compound would do for a person.
⚠
Worth knowing
The catch. Rodent-only, single unreplicated lab, contradicted by later work, or pulled from trials. Read it alongside the findings, not after them.
⚲
In practice Off-label
How these are actually used — stacks, cycles, what communities and clinics report — which is often well ahead of the research. This is reported practice, never evidence and never a recommendation.
Off-label marks an approved medicine being used for something it was not approved for. Unapproved use marks a compound with no approval anywhere, so there is no label to be off.
⚑
Status
Approved medicine somewhere, still in trials, or purely a research chemical. Only twelve of the ninety-five are approved anywhere.
⚙
Mice aren't people
Most compounds that work in mice don't work in humans. A strong rodent result is a reason to keep studying something — not evidence that it works.
PeptideLine.io is educational. Nothing here is medical advice, a dosing protocol, or a recommendation to use any compound. Most entries describe substances not approved for human use. Talk to a licensed clinician before acting on anything you read here. Last updated —. Approval status last checked —.
