BPC-157: specifications, literature and price per milligram

What BPC-157 is

BPC-157 is a synthetic pentadecapeptide - fifteen amino acids, Gly-Glu-Pro-Pro-Pro-Gly-Lys-Pro-Ala-Asp-Asp-Ala-Gly-Leu-Val - corresponding to a partial sequence of a protein isolated from human gastric juice. The sequence was first described by Sikiric and colleagues at the University of Zagreb in 1993, and the Zagreb group has produced the large majority of the literature that exists on it.

It is supplied as a lyophilized powder. The free peptide has a molecular weight of roughly 1419.5 g/mol and carries CAS 137525-51-0. Because it is a short, unmodified peptide with no lipidation and no cyclisation, it is comparatively straightforward to synthesise, which is a large part of why it sits at the cheap end of the research peptide market rather than the expensive end.

What the published literature examined

This section describes the shape of the research record. It is not a claim that any of it transfers to a person, and none of it is guidance to do anything.

The record is almost entirely rodent-based. Review articles catalog rat and mouse injury models in which angiogenesis, nitric oxide signalling and tissue-repair endpoints were measured (Seiwerth et al., Frontiers in Pharmacology 2021; Jozwiak et al., Pharmaceuticals 2025). The breadth of models in those reviews is unusually wide for a compound of this size, which is one reason the compound attracts as much attention as it does - and also one reason to read the primary papers rather than a summary of them.

Human data remain minimal. A registered Phase I safety and pharmacokinetic study in 42 healthy volunteers (NCT02637284) has no posted results and its public record has not been meaningfully updated since 2015. No regulator in any jurisdiction has approved the compound for any indication. Anyone telling you otherwise is selling something.

How to read that honestly

A large preclinical literature and an absent clinical one is a specific situation, not a shortcut to either enthusiasm or dismissal. It means the compound is a reasonable subject for further research and an unreasonable basis for a claim. We sell it as the former.

Purity, identity and what a lot certificate has to show

For a fifteen-residue peptide, the two questions that matter are whether the material is the sequence on the label and how much of the vial mass is that sequence rather than something else. Those map to two assays.

• Identity by mass spectrometry. The observed mass should match the expected monoisotopic or average mass for the sequence. A certificate that reports purity but never establishes identity has answered the easier question.
• Purity by reverse-phase HPLC, reported as area percent with the chromatogram attached. A bare number with no trace is an assertion, not a result.
• Lot matching. The certificate has to carry the same lot number that is printed on the vial you receive. A certificate for a different lot describes a different batch of material.

Net peptide content is a third number worth understanding: lyophilized peptide carries counter-ions and residual water, so the mass in the vial is not one hundred percent peptide even when HPLC purity is high. Vendors differ in whether they label gross or net. It is a fair question to ask before you compare two prices.

Price per milligram

BPC-157 is sold in 5mg and 10mg vials across most of the market, which makes it the single best compound for checking whether a vendor's pricing is honest. Two vials of 5mg are not the same product as one vial of 10mg, and a headline price that does not say which one it refers to is not a price.

Effect publishes the vial price and the price per milligram side by side on every size, in plain HTML, with no account required to see either.

Handling and storage of lyophilized material

Laboratory handling information only, for material in storage. Nothing here is a preparation procedure and nothing here is for use.

• Lyophilized peptide is shipped at ambient temperature and is stable that way for the duration of transit.
• On receipt, store the sealed vial cold and dark. Freezer storage is standard for long-term holding; refrigeration is normal for material in active use.
• Repeated freeze-thaw cycles are the most common avoidable cause of degradation. Aliquot once rather than cycling a single vial.
• Peptides in solution are markedly less stable than peptides as powder. Solution stability is a function of the specific sequence, the buffer and the temperature.

How the BPC-157 record is built

The first useful distinction is between a discovery paper, a model paper, a review and a clinical study. They answer different questions. The 1993 description from Sikiric and colleagues set out the gastric-peptide hypothesis and identified the sequence that later work called BPC-157. Subsequent papers from the same research network applied the material to a wide range of animal and laboratory models. Reviews collect those papers, but a review does not turn the underlying models into human evidence.

That concentration of authorship matters. A large paper count can look like broad replication even when many papers share investigators, methods and assumptions. The record should therefore be read in two passes: first ask what was measured, in which model and against which control; then ask how many independent groups have reproduced the same finding. Counting titles alone loses both pieces of information.

The registered Phase I record, NCT02637284, proposed a randomized, placebo-controlled study in 42 healthy volunteers. Its public registry entry has not posted results and has not been meaningfully updated since 2015. The accurate description is therefore an old registry record with no public results, not evidence of a completed trial and not proof that the study failed.

Endpoints are not interchangeable

Preclinical papers often place several kinds of observation under one broad heading. A microscope score, a measured concentration, an imaging endpoint and a behavioral score do not carry the same uncertainty. Before drawing any conclusion, identify the primary endpoint, the unit in which it was measured, whether the observer was blinded, and how many experimental units contributed to the comparison.

Animal work also has a translation boundary that should stay visible. Species, induced model, timing, route, formulation and laboratory conditions all constrain what a result means. Repeating the paper's conclusion without those constraints makes the statement sound broader than the experiment. This page keeps the model attached to the finding for that reason.

Mechanistic language needs the same discipline. A paper may measure nitric-oxide signaling, vessel formation or gene expression alongside another endpoint. That can support a hypothesis about a pathway. It does not by itself establish that the pathway caused every observation, and it does not establish a result outside the experimental system.

What an identity result should resolve

BPC-157's fifteen-residue sequence gives a laboratory a specific molecular target. A mass-spectrometry report should state what mass convention it used and should place the observed signal beside the expected value. A generic 'identity conforms' line is weaker because it hides the comparison the instrument actually made.

Salt form and counter-ion can affect the mass of material weighed into a vial without changing the peptide sequence. That is one reason identity, chromatographic purity and net peptide content belong on separate lines. Each measurement answers a different question, and a strong number on one line cannot substitute for a missing number on another.

HPLC area percent should be read as a composition signal under the stated method, not as the number of milligrams in the vial. The trace should show the integrated peaks and the method should identify the column, mobile phases, gradient and detection wavelength. Without that context, two purity percentages may have been produced under materially different conditions.

A practical purchasing record

A useful purchasing record keeps five objects together: the product specification, the supplier batch identifier, the vial label, the third-party result and the purchase record. If any one of those loses its link to the others, later investigation becomes a memory exercise. The lot number is what turns separate documents into one chain.

• Record the labeled mass and whether the supplier describes it as gross fill or net peptide.
• Record the reported purity method rather than copying only the percentage.
• Keep the measured mass separate from the nominal mass; do not overwrite one with the other.
• Preserve the report privately even when a public page shows only a limited result summary.
• Do not reuse a result for a later batch merely because the product name is unchanged.

Those steps are administrative rather than scientific, but they are where most certificate mistakes begin. Good analytical work cannot rescue a result that has been attached to the wrong inventory.

Primary records used for this overview

• Sikiric et al., 1993, the early gastric-peptide paper: PubMed record.
• ClinicalTrials.gov record NCT02637284, including its dated history and absence of posted results: study record.
• Later papers and reviews are used to map the preclinical record, but are not presented as a substitute for independent controlled human evidence.

Separating an observation from its proposed explanation

A model may show a measured difference and a paper may also propose a signaling explanation. Those are two claims with different support. The observation follows from the endpoint and analysis; the explanation may rely on secondary markers, prior literature or a later experiment. A faithful summary labels the mechanism as proposed unless the design directly tests causation.

This distinction is useful in the BPC-157 record because many reviews organize diverse model findings around shared pathways. The organization may be scientifically useful, but it does not make every pathway necessary or sufficient for every reported observation. Read the primary experiment before treating a review diagram as a demonstrated chain.

Negative and neutral findings deserve the same attention. A page built only from positive abstract sentences cannot estimate reproducibility or publication bias. Where the public record does not provide enough information, the correct entry is uncertain rather than favorable.

Versioning the research record

Literature summaries age. Trial records can change status, publications can be corrected, and new independent work can alter the replication picture. This page therefore carries a review date and links to primary records that can be checked again.

A future update should record what changed instead of silently replacing the conclusion. That approach lets readers distinguish a new source from a new interpretation and prevents an old search snippet from becoming permanent evidence.