Peptide bioregulators: what the Khavinson literature shows

What is a Khavinson peptide bioregulator?

The origin story, in the authors' own words: a 2022 paper in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences, co-authored by Khavinson himself, describes the set as peptides characterized by Khavinson from 1973 onward, initially isolated from animal tissues and found to be organ specific. The same paper records the two-step method that produced most of the names: a complex is pulled out of an animal organ first, then a short peptide is separated from that complex and made synthetically. Thymalin came from calf thymus, and Thymogen, a Glu-Trp dipeptide, was separated from it by reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography. Epitalon came the same way out of a bovine pineal complex.

Why the length is the point: the group's own explanation for working at this size is that it lets the molecule reach DNA. A 2021 systematic review in Molecules, with Khavinson as first author, frames the whole program around short peptides of two to seven amino acid residues penetrating the nuclei and nucleoli of cells and interacting with the nucleosome, the histone proteins, and both single-stranded and double-stranded DNA.

What the material is when it arrives: the same freeze-dried powder in a glass vial as any other research peptide. The drying process behind that powder, its residual moisture, and the storage question that starts once water goes back in are the same here as anywhere else, and nothing about the class changes them.

What the class does not have: replication outside the originating orbit. Khavinson is an author on the class reviews, on the primary papers, and on the patents. The 2022 THP-1 paper is the clearest exception in the set read for this page, run by an Italian group with Khavinson as a co-author rather than by an unrelated laboratory.

Which sequence does each bioregulator name stand for?

The single most useful table on this page: the 2021 Molecules review carries a list of short peptides with their letter codes and their trade names side by side. That mapping is what turns a vendor label back into a sequence, and and without it a bare name cannot be resolved to a substance at all.

The row worth staring at: Ovagen. The name points at the ovary, and the review's own table lists it for renal cell function and hepatoprotection. Kidney and liver. Testagen is the same shape from the other direction: the name says testes and the table says male reproductive system function, which is the name restated rather than an organ measured. That gap between what a name promises and what a source will actually put in writing is the recurring pattern in this whole family.

The compounds that have their own page here

How this library is split: a compound earns its own page when the retrieved record contains something specific to that molecule and to no other, checked before any writing starts. Everything that failed that test lives in a section on this page instead, which is the rest of this article.

Ten cleared it. Three of them show what clearing it looks like: Epitalon, the pineal tetrapeptide routinely confused with the older extract Epithalamin, Pinealon, whose DNA evidence sits apart from the rest of the family, and Bronchogen, where two different sequences answer to one name. The full set:

• Epitalon, AEDG: the evidence, and why it is not Epithalamin.
• Pinealon, EDR: what the evidence shows and what it does not.
• Vilon, Lys-Glu: what the published papers say about the shortest one in the series.
• Vesugen, Lys-Glu-Asp: what the published papers report, and how much of it is about Vesugen.
• Cartalax, AED: what the published research actually shows.
• Cardiogen, Ala-Glu-Asp-Arg: what the research amounts to, and where its headline number comes from.
• Bronchogen, AEDL: two sequences, no human data, and what is left.
• Testagen, KEDG: what the published research measured, which is not what the name says.
• Cortagen, AEDP: the evidence, and the human data inside a patent.
• Prostamax, KEDP: the evidence, and the thousandfold gap inside it.

The eight sections below have no page of their own, because the retrieved record for each is either too thin to fill one honestly or, in one case, empty. Livagen carries the most compound-specific evidence of the eight and comes first. Thymulin is on the list for a different reason, which is its own section.

Livagen, KEDA: the one somebody asked the gut about

What it is: a tetrapeptide, Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala. The molecule is defined by a granted US patent that never uses the word Livagen: US 7,101,854 B2, inventor Khavinson, assignee GEROPHARM, priority 2000, granted 2006, claiming a tetrapeptide of formula C18H31N5O9 with a molecular weight of 461.48 and a stated target of hepatocyte functional activity. The name-to-sequence link comes from the journal literature rather than from the patent, and the 2005 digestive-enzyme paper cited below is one of the records that writes Livagen and Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala together.

Where the sequence came from: not from design. A 2001 Russian-language paper states the peptide was obtained by directed chemical synthesis on the basis of amino acid analysis of liver polypeptide preparations. It is the liver one, and it is a reverse-engineered fragment of a liver extract rather than a molecule someone drew.

The question nobody asked of the others: can digestion destroy it? A 2005 Russian-language paper in Advances in Gerontology reports that Livagen is weakly hydrolyzed, that small-intestine peptide hydrolases do not hydrolyze it even to a small extent, and that in an in vitro assay it cut glycyl-L-leucine dipeptidase activity in small intestine by 50 percent. Then the strange part. After two weeks of oral Livagen in rats, digestive enzyme activity fell in young animals and rose in old ones, with the old animals approaching the level of young controls on most measures. Rats, orally, for two weeks. An effect that runs in opposite directions by age is a specific and checkable claim rather than a general one.

The family splits on the same assay: a 2022 transport review compared four of these peptides for resistance to hydrolysis in saline, Ringer's solution, hydrochloric acid and tissue homogenates. KEDW and KEDA held up for three to four hours. KE was hydrolyzed to a greater extent and AEDG to a lesser one. So Livagen sits on the stable side of a split that Epitalon and Vilon do not.

The counterweight, and it is the honest part: the document that legally defines this molecule specifies parenteral administration, at a claimed range of 0.01 to 100 micrograms per kilogram. That is a patent claim written to be wide, not a protocol, and it points the opposite way to the gut-stability work. No human study of either route was retrieved.

What the human-sounding papers are: ex vivo. A 2002 paper titled for chromatin activation in lymphocytes from old people describes blood drawn from donors and cells cultured with the peptide, not people taking anything. A 2004 paper ran Vilon, Epithalon, Livagen, Prostamax and Cortagen on the same endpoints in leukocytes from donors aged 75 to 88, and reports that Epithalon, Livagen and Prostamax produced a decondensation the other two did not. Same design: donor cells, in a dish.

Pancragen, KEDW: the only one here with people in it

What it is: a tetrapeptide written in the source as Lys-Glu-Asp-Trp-NH2, aimed at the pancreas.

The reason this section exists: a 2011 report in Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine examined two groups of older people, 30 healthy and 33 with type 2 diabetes. In the diabetic patients, the abstract states that pancragen significantly decreased fasting glucose and glucose in a standard glucose tolerance test, and reduced plasma insulin and the insulin resistance index, while patients receiving no pancragen showed no change in carbohydrate metabolism indices. That is the one retrievable report of any compound in this page's eight being given to living people.

What that report is not: the abstract does not describe randomization, blinding, or a placebo, and it comes from the group that developed the compound. Only the abstract was retrievable, so the dose, the route and the duration are not visible here and are not reported anywhere on this page. A single unblinded report from the originators is a reason to look further, not a result to build on.

The animal layer, which is unusually deep for this family: a 2007 paper studied the tetrapeptide in Wistar rats with streptozotocin-induced diabetes and reports that oral pancragen produced a hypoglycemic effect during treatment, while intramuscular pancragen normalized mesenteric capillary endothelium adhesion without changing capillary permeability. A 2015 Russian-language paper went further up the tree, to nine old female rhesus monkeys aged 20 to 25, comparing intramuscular pancragen against oral glimepiride over ten days, and reports that both lowered basal glucose while pancragen also normalized insulin and C-peptide. Rats and monkeys, not people.

And the cell layer: a 2013 paper reports that the tetrapeptide raised expression of differentiation factors in acinar and islet cells in young and aged pancreatic cell cultures.

Chonluten, EDG: measured in a human cell line, at a concentration

What it is: a tripeptide, Glu-Asp-Gly, described in the methods of the 2022 THP-1 paper as coming from respiratory lung tissue.

What that study did: it took THP-1, a human leukemia monocytic cell line bought from ATCC, and incubated the cells overnight with 100 nanograms per milliliter of each peptide, alone or with bacterial lipopolysaccharide at the same concentration. That is a concentration in a culture well. It is not a dose, it was never given to anyone, and a concentration and an amount are two different quantities even before the species changes.

What separated Chonluten from the other four: two things, both reported as observations rather than conclusions. The paper says all five peptides reduced tumor necrosis factor and interleukin-6 release from lipopolysaccharide-stimulated cells, and its abstract states specifically that the Chonluten tripeptide inhibited in vitro tumor necrosis factor production by monocytes exposed to lipopolysaccharide. It also reports that Chonluten was the only one of the five that raised the apoptotic fraction of treated cells, roughly doubling it relative to the others, a result the authors place in supplementary data rather than in a main figure.

The limit of it: one paper, one immortalised cell line, one concentration, no dose-response curve reported in the abstract or the sections read. A search of PubMed titles and abstracts for the name returns exactly one record.

Thymogen, EW: an FDA database entry that is not an approval

What it is: a dipeptide, Glu-Trp, obtained from the calf-thymus complex Thymalin by reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography and then made synthetically.

The paper trail, and how it gets misread: the FDA National Drug Code directory carries one entry, NDC 71052-152, whose generic name is Thymogen and whose active ingredient is recorded as oglufanide. Its product type and marketing category both read BULK INGREDIENT. That is a listing of a substance by a registered establishment. It is not an approval, no finished product sits behind it, and the same directory carries ten comparable bulk entries for Epitalon and three for Pinealon from peptide manufacturers.

Where it appears in the class work: the 2022 THP-1 paper reports that of the five peptides tested, Thymogen was the most effective at attenuating interleukin-17 release from activated macrophages, and that it most sharply reduced the fraction of treated monocytes adhering to activated endothelial cells. Same caveat as the rest: a human cell line, one concentration, one paper.

The counting problem: a title-and-abstract search for the name returns 81 records, far more than any other compound in this section, and those records were not individually classified for this page. Some are about the Glu-Trp dipeptide and some are about other things carrying a similar name. The count is reported as a raw count and should not be read as 81 studies of this molecule.

Is thymulin one of the Khavinson bioregulators?

The correction first: thymulin is a naturally occurring thymic hormone, not a synthetic short peptide from this series. A 2009 review in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences describes it as produced exclusively by thymic epithelial cells, consisting of a nonapeptide coupled to a zinc ion which confers the biological activity, and characterized after its discovery in the early 1970s as a hormone involved in T cell differentiation.

Why it keeps ending up on the same lists: it is a thymus peptide, it is old, and the timing overlaps. It is nine residues rather than two to four, it is a native hormone rather than a copy of one, and it needs zinc to work. A Europe PMC search for the query thymulin AND Khavinson, run 4 August 2026, returns two records, and neither is a study of thymulin by that group.

The size of its own literature: a title-and-abstract search returns 374 records, against 18 for Livagen and 1 for Chonluten. That is a different order of evidence from anything else on this page, and it is also the reason thymulin does not belong in a hub section about a thin literature. It has its own, independent of this family.

What it still does not have: an approval or a registered trial of thymulin as an intervention. The FDA National Drug Code directory carries three bulk-ingredient entries whose active ingredient is recorded as nonathymulin, from three peptide manufacturers, in the same non-approval category as the Thymogen entry above. One registration in each of two trial registries mentions the name, and both turned out to be zinc studies where the word appears in the record rather than trials of the peptide.

Ovagen, EDL: a name shared with two unrelated products

What the class source says: one line, in Table 5 of the 2021 Molecules review. EDL, Ovagen, with a listed activity of regulation of renal cell function, hepatoprotection and DNA binding, carrying a single reference. That is the whole of what was retrieved for this compound.

Why searching for it goes wrong: the name is taken twice over. A PubMed search for the query ovagen[tiab], run 4 August 2026, returns 22 records, and every one read for this page is about Ovagen the veterinary ovine follicle-stimulating hormone preparation, used to superovulate sheep, goats and cattle. The FDA databases return one match, R18 OVAGEN, a homeopathic over-the-counter product from a US supplement company whose ingredient list includes progesterone and Apis mellifica. Neither has anything to do with a tripeptide.

What this page therefore reports about the peptide: its letter code, the activity its own class review lists for it, and nothing else. There is no study of it here, because none was retrieved. A page that filled this section would be filling it from somewhere other than a source.

Thymagen: one record, from 1991, and it argues with its own title

The entire retrieved record: one paper. A 1991 Russian-language study in Ukrainskii Biokhimicheskii Zhurnal on cyclic nucleotide levels and phosphodiesterase activity in spleen lymphocytes of sensitised and anaphylactic guinea pigs, testing three thymus-derived preparations together.

The detail that matters more than the result: the paper's title names thymagen, and the English abstract of the same paper names thymogen in its closing sentence. Whether those are two names for one preparation, a transliteration difference, or a typesetting error is not resolvable from the record itself. That ambiguity is the reason this name is hard to search and easy to misattribute.

What it is not: the paper describes thymus-derived preparations, not a defined synthetic short peptide with a published sequence. No sequence for thymagen was retrieved for this page, and none is printed here.

What is published about Vesilute?

What the search returned: zero. PubMed title-and-abstract, zero. Europe PMC across full text, zero. Three FDA databases, no record. Two clinical trial registries, no record. The same searches run in the same session returned 5,190 PubMed records for semaglutide and 18 for Livagen, so the mechanism was working and the zero is a real zero rather than a broken query.

What this page says about it: the name exists and people search for it. Beyond the name, this page reports nothing, because nothing was found to report. That is the honest end of the section, and writing a paragraph of plausible pharmacology here would be inventing one.

Are peptide bioregulators approved by any regulator?

Not by the FDA, on the searches that could be run. Three openFDA databases were queried on 4 August 2026 for eighteen names that circulate alongside this family, the drug label endpoint, the National Drug Code directory and the Drugs@FDA approvals endpoint. No approval record exists for any of them. The same queries returned 18 label records for semaglutide and 731 NDC records for metformin, so the negatives are real and not a failed request.

The three hits that look like approvals and are not: CardioGen-82 is a genuinely approved Bracco product, and it is rubidium chloride Rb-82 for cardiac imaging, sharing nothing with the AEDR tetrapeptide except most of a name. Testagen returns a label record for Testagen TDS Testosterone 5 percent, a transdermal clinical-trial material, and that same product is what turns up under the name in both trial registries. R18 OVAGEN is a homeopathic preparation from a supplement company. Every one of these was opened and read rather than counted, which is the only reason they are not sitting in a total somewhere as evidence of regulatory standing.

What could not be checked, stated as a limit rather than a result: the European Medicines Agency search endpoint returned an HTTP 403 to every request, so no claim about EU authorization is made here in either direction. The Russian State Register of Medicines is reachable but its search runs through a form that could not be driven from a plain request, and it returned the same unfiltered page for every query. Several of these compounds are Russian in origin, so that is the register most likely to hold something, and it is precisely the one that could not be read.

Has anyone actually been given these?

Once, in the record retrieved for this page: the 2011 Pancragen report in elderly people described above. Everything else labeled human is ex vivo, meaning blood or cells were taken from people and the peptide was added to the dish afterwards. That distinction is the single easiest thing to get wrong here, because paper titles say things like lymphocytes from old people, which reads like a trial and is not one.

The registry position, stated carefully because the raw counts mislead: ClinicalTrials.gov returns no study of any of these compounds as an intervention. Seven of the eighteen names do return a hit, and every one was opened: they are the word appearing inside an unrelated record, among them a cardiac imaging agent, a testosterone patch, an enteral feed and a gene-expression study of airway epithelium. Semaglutide returns 757 on the same query shape. The EU Clinical Trials Register behaves the same way, zero for sixteen of the names and, for the two that hit, a zinc study in multiple myeloma and that same testosterone patch.

What that does not prove: a registry is a record of trials registered in that system. Absence from two Western registries is evidence about those registries. It is not proof that no study was ever run anywhere, and the register that would settle it is the one that could not be queried.

Why is so much of this literature in Russian?

Because the program is Russian. The affiliation on the class papers is the Saint Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology, the work dates from 1973 by the group's own account, and a large share of it published in Russian-language journals with English abstracts, principally Advances in Gerontology and Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine. Several of the papers cited on this page are Russian-language records and are labeled as such in the reference list below.

What that changes and what it does not: language is not a quality judgement, and a Russian-language paper with a PubMed identifier is a real citable record. What it does change is depth of access. For most of these papers only the English abstract is retrievable, and an abstract cannot tell you the sample size, the control arm or the statistics. That is why the numbers on this page are attributed to the abstract they came from, and why none of them is presented as settled.

The concentration problem underneath it: most of this record traces back to one research program and its collaborators. When the same group designs the molecule, runs the study, writes the review and holds the patent, the usual correction of independent replication has not happened yet.

What does an FDA bulk ingredient listing actually mean?

It means a registered establishment told the FDA it handles that substance. The National Drug Code directory records the labeler, a product code and the active ingredient, and for these peptides the product type field reads BULK INGREDIENT rather than a finished drug. No efficacy review, no safety review and no approved labelling sits behind an entry like that.

Why it gets quoted as if it meant more: the entry is genuinely in an FDA database, it has a real code, and the ingredient name is real. Epitalon has ten such entries, Pinealon three, thymulin three, Thymogen one. Read as approvals, that looks like a regulated family. Read correctly, it is a list of who is registered to sell the powder.

What it does not tell you about the vial in front of you: nothing about identity or content. That question is answered by the certificate of analysis and what each of its lines measures, and even there a high purity figure is not a statement that the sequence is the one on the label.

What the record does not settle

The open items across the whole class:

• Independent replication. Twelve of the eighteen sources below name Khavinson as an author. No result on this page has been reproduced by an unrelated laboratory in anything retrieved for it.
• Full text. For most of the primary papers here only the English abstract is available, so sample sizes, controls and statistics could not be checked.
• Route. The stability work and the patents point in different directions for at least one compound, and no human study of either route exists to arbitrate.
• Two compounds with almost no record. Thymagen rests on one 1991 paper about thymus preparations. For Vesilute nothing was found at all.
• The Russian register. The one regulator most likely to hold a registration for these products could not be queried, so its silence here means nothing.
• Storage once mixed. No compound-specific stability data was retrieved for any of them, so the general reconstituted-storage question is the only thing that can be said, and it is not specific to this class.

How this page is sourced

What was read in full: both open-access papers, read through the PubMed Central mirror, the 2021 Molecules review and the 2022 THP-1 paper, both read while writing this page. The granted US patent and the 2022 transport review were retrieved and read in the source-assembly pass that preceded it. Everything else here is the English abstract of the record named, and where that is the case the section says so.

How the negatives were established: every regulator and registry claim above comes from a query run on 4 August 2026 with a working positive control and a nonsense negative control in the same session, so a zero could be distinguished from a broken request. Every non-zero hit was opened and read rather than counted, which is how the CardioGen-82, Testagen and Ovagen name collisions surfaced.

What was deliberately not used: vendor pages and forum posts. Neither appears here, and neither informed any sentence on this page.

The standard: the full sourcing and citation-verification standard for this site, including who checks a page before it ships, lives on the methodology page.

Last reviewed: 4 August 2026.

1. 1

   Khavinson VK, Popovich IG, Linkova NS, Mironova ES, Ilina AR. Peptide regulation of gene expression: a systematic review. Molecules. 2021;26(22):7053. Table 5, structure and name of peptide. Full text read via PubMed Central. doi:10.3390/molecules26227053. PMID 34834147.

2. 2

   Avolio F, Martinotti S, Khavinson VK, Esposito JE, Giambuzzi G, Marino A, et al. Peptides regulating proliferative activity and inflammatory pathways in the monocyte/macrophage THP-1 cell line. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(7):3607. Human leukemia monocytic cell line, in vitro, 100 ng/mL per peptide. Full text read via PubMed Central. doi:10.3390/ijms23073607. PMID 35408963.

3. 3

   Khavinson V, Linkova N, Kozhevnikova E, Dyatlova A, Petukhov M. Transport of biologically active ultrashort peptides using POT and LAT carriers. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(14):7733. Hydrolysis comparison across AEDG, KE, KEDW and KEDA. doi:10.3390/ijms23147733. PMID 35887081.

4. 4

   Khavinson VKh (inventor), GEROPHARM Ltd (assignee). Tetrapeptide stimulating the functional activity of hepatocytes, pharmacological substance on its basis and the method of its application. US Patent 7,101,854 B2. Priority 9 October 2000, granted 5 September 2006. Sequence Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala, C18H31N5O9, MW 461.48, parenteral route, 0.01 to 100 mcg/kg. Full document read. patents.google.com, US7101854B2.

5. 5

   Timofeeva NM, Khavinson VK, Malinin VV, Nikitina AA, Egorova VV. [Effect of peptide Livagen on activity of digestive enzymes in gastrointestinal tract and non-digestive organs in rats of different ages]. Advances in Gerontology. 2005;16:92-96. Russian-language record, English abstract only. Rat, oral, plus in vitro enzyme assay. PMID 16075683.

6. 6

   Brodskiĭ VIa, Khavinson VKh, Zolotarev IuA, Nechaeva NV, Malinin VV, Novikova TE, Gvazava IG, Fateeva VI. [Rhythm of protein synthesis in cultures of hepatocytes from rats of different ages. Norm and effect of the peptide livagen]. Izvestiia Akademii Nauk, Seriia Biologicheskaia. 2001;(5):517-521. Russian-language record, English abstract only. Rat hepatocyte culture. Source of the directed-synthesis-from-liver-extract statement. PMID 15926314.

7. 7

   Khavinson VKh, Lezhava TA, Monaselidze JG, Dzhokhadze TA, Dvalishvili NA, Bablishvili NK, Ryadnova IY. Effects of Livagen peptide on chromatin activation in lymphocytes from old people. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2002;134(4):389-392. Ex vivo donor cell culture, not a trial. doi:10.1023/a:1021924702103. PMID 12533768.

8. 8

   Khavinson VK, Lezhava TA, Malinin VV. Effects of short peptides on lymphocyte chromatin in senile subjects. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2004;137(1):78-81. Five-way comparison in leukocytes from donors aged 75 to 88, ex vivo. doi:10.1023/b:bebm.0000024393.40560.05. PMID 15085253.

9. 9

   Korkushko OV, Khavinson VK, Shatilo VB, Antonyk-Sheglova IA, Bondarenko EV. Prospects of using pancragen for correction of metabolic disorders in elderly people. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2011;151(4):454-456. Human, 30 healthy and 33 with type 2 diabetes. English abstract only; no randomisation or blinding described in it. doi:10.1007/s10517-011-1354-4. PMID 22448364.

10. 10

    Khavinson VK, Gavrisheva NA, Malinin VV, Chefu SG, Trofimov EL. Effect of pancragen on blood glucose level, capillary permeability and adhesion in rats with experimental diabetes mellitus. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2007;144(4):559-562. Wistar rats, streptozotocin model. Source of the Lys-Glu-Asp-Trp-NH2 sequence. doi:10.1007/s10517-007-0377-3. PMID 18642713.

11. 11

    Goncharova ND, Ivanova LG, Oganyan TE, Vengerin AA, Khavinson VKh. [Correction of impaired glucose tolerance using tetrapeptide (Pancragen) in old female rhesus monkeys]. Advances in Gerontology. 2015;28(3):579-585. Russian-language record, English abstract only. Nine old female rhesus monkeys, intramuscular, against oral glimepiride. PMID 28509500.

12. 12

    Khavinson VK, Durnova AO, Polyakova VO, Tolibova GH, Linkova NS, Kvetnoy IM, et al. Effects of pancragen on the differentiation of pancreatic cells during their ageing. Bull Exp Biol Med. 2013;154(4):501-504. Cell culture. doi:10.1007/s10517-013-1987-6. PMID 23486591.

13. 13

    Reggiani PC, Morel GR, Console GM, Barbeito CG, Rodriguez SS, Brown OA, et al. The thymus-neuroendocrine axis: physiology, molecular biology, and therapeutic potential of the thymic peptide thymulin. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2009;1153:98-106. Source of the zinc-coupled nonapeptide description and the early-1970s discovery date. doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2008.03964.x. PMID 19236333.

14. 14

    Demidov SV, Kostromin AN, Kuibeda VV, Chernaia IV, Borovok MI. [Effect of thymagen, thymalin and vilosen on the cAMP and cGMP levels and phosphodiesterase activity in spleen lymphocytes during sensitization and anaphylactic shock]. Ukrainskii Biokhimicheskii Zhurnal. 1991. Russian-language record, English abstract only. Guinea pig. The only retrieved record naming thymagen. PMID 1659006.

15. 15

    U.S. Food and Drug Administration. openFDA drug/label, drug/ndc and drug/drugsfda endpoints, queried 4 August 2026 for eighteen compound names with semaglutide and metformin as positive controls. Records retrieved and read: NDC 71052-152 Thymogen, bulk ingredient, oglufanide; NDC 71052-826, 73212-041 and 83589-173 thymulin, bulk ingredient, nonathymulin; CardioGen-82, rubidium chloride Rb-82, Bracco Diagnostics; R18 OVAGEN, Apex Energetics. open.fda.gov, drug NDC directory API.

16. 16

    U.S. National Library of Medicine. ClinicalTrials.gov API v2, queried 4 August 2026 for eighteen compound names, semaglutide as positive control (757 studies). Every non-zero hit opened and read. clinicaltrials.gov.

17. 17

    European Medicines Agency. EU Clinical Trials Register, queried 4 August 2026 for eighteen compound names, semaglutide as positive control (95 protocols). Both non-zero hits opened: EudraCT 2014-004499-47, zinc in multiple myeloma, and EudraCT 2013-001766-42, a transdermal testosterone product. clinicaltrialsregister.eu.

18. 18

    U.S. National Library of Medicine. PubMed, title-and-abstract counts retrieved 4 August 2026: livagen 18, chonluten 1, pancragen 7, ovagen 22, vesilute 0, thymogen 81, thymagen 1, thymulin 374, epitalon 62, semaglutide 5190, and 0 for a nonsense control string. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.

Related pages

Compound pages in this series, plus the two handling pages that apply to every vial in it.

• Epitalon, AEDG: the pineal tetrapeptide, and the older extract it keeps getting confused with.
• Pinealon, EDR: where its DNA evidence differs from the rest of the family.
• Bronchogen, AEDL: two sequences, one name, identical mass.
• What a lyophilized peptide is: the freeze-drying process every one of these arrives in.
• How to read a COA: which line on a certificate answers which question.

The compound series: each new page in this run appears first in The Decadewise briefing.