Skip to content
Terminus Peptides
  • Research use only — not for human or veterinary use
  • 55 compound profiles, every source cited
  • 62 research materials listed
  • Prices published, not hidden behind an enquiry
  • Vials and pre-filled pens
  • Dispatched and supported from the UK
  • Every profile states its UK regulatory status

Research profile · Peptide

Adamax

Also known as N-acetyl semax adamantane analogue

Not assessed — evidence level 0 of 4: Evidence not yet assessedExperimental — UK regulatory status: Experimental — not authorised for human use in the UK

Overview

A modified Semax analogue with no published scientific literature of any kind.

Category
Peptide
Highest evidence level identified
Evidence not yet assessed
Last scientifically reviewed
20 August 2026
Last regulatory review
20 August 2026

Mechanism under investigation

Adamax is described by suppliers as a modification of Semax — itself a synthetic heptapeptide derived from a fragment of adrenocorticotropic hormone — carrying an acetyl group at one end and an adamantane group at the other, changes said to slow enzymatic breakdown and extend how long the peptide persists. That description comes from supplier material rather than from any published characterisation. No peer-reviewed paper describing this molecule, its synthesis, its receptor activity or its behaviour in any living system could be located. The mechanism above is therefore what the compound is claimed to do, not what has been shown.

Research areas

  • Neuropeptide research

These are fields in which the compound has been investigated. Listing a field is not a statement that anything was demonstrated within it.

Current evidence

In-vitro evidence

Cells, tissues or biochemical systems outside a living organism.

None. A literature search for the adamantane-modified Semax analogue returned zero records.

Animal evidence

Studies in living non-human animals.

None.

Human observational evidence

Studies observing people without assigning an intervention.

None.

Clinical-trial evidence

Studies assigning an intervention to human participants.

None, and no registered trial. This is not a case of thin or preliminary evidence — searches of the biomedical literature for this compound return nothing at all.

Study limitations

  • There is no published literature on this compound. Every property attributed to it is either supplier copy or an inference from Semax, which is a different molecule.
  • Semax has its own research base, largely Russian-language and concentrated in a small number of groups. Even if that literature were transferred wholesale — which would not be sound — it would describe the parent peptide, not this modification.
  • The two structural changes claimed for it are precisely the kind that alter how a peptide distributes and how long it lasts. That makes read-across from Semax less defensible here, not more.
  • Because nothing is published, there is no independent confirmation that material sold under this name is the molecule described, and no analytical method in the literature by which a purchaser could check.

UK regulatory context

Experimental — not authorised for human use in the UK

A compound appearing in research literature that holds no UK authorisation for human use in any indication.

Source: The Human Medicines Regulations 2012, regulation 46 — prohibition on sale or supply of an unauthorised medicinal product (opens legislation.gov.uk in a new tab) (legislation.gov.uk)

Regulatory classification is jurisdiction-specific. A compound authorised elsewhere is not thereby authorised in the UK, and a supplier’s description of a substance does not determine how it is classified in law. See safety and regulation for the framework and the authoritative sources.

Safety and interpretation

No safety data exist for this compound at any level — no toxicology, no animal work, no human exposure recorded in the literature. Nothing can be said about its tolerability, and the absence of reported harm carries no information, because there has been no study in which harm could have been reported. The general findings on directly-marketed research peptides apply with extra force here: where a compound has no published analytical characterisation, there is no reference standard against which a supplied vial can be checked.

References