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

BPC-157

Also known as Body protection compound 157, PL 14736

Animal — evidence level 2 of 4: Animal evidenceExperimental — UK regulatory status: Experimental — not authorised for human use in the UK

Overview

A synthetic 15-amino-acid peptide derived from a sequence reported in gastric juice, studied predominantly in animal injury models.

Category
Peptide
Highest evidence level identified
Animal evidence
Last scientifically reviewed
19 August 2026
Last regulatory review
19 August 2026

Mechanism under investigation

BPC-157 is a synthetic pentadecapeptide whose sequence corresponds to a partial fragment of a larger protein reported in human gastric juice. It is proposed to act on the nitric oxide system, on VEGFR2-linked angiogenic signalling, and on the focal adhesion kinase and paxillin pathway associated with cell adhesion and migration. These mechanisms are inferred from cell-culture and rodent work and should be read as proposed rather than established in humans.

Research areas

  • Gastrointestinal models
  • Tendon and ligament models
  • Angiogenesis

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.

A moderate body of cell-culture work exists. Peptide exposure has been reported to accelerate fibroblast outgrowth from rat Achilles tendon explants, improve cell survival under oxidative stress, and increase fibroblast migration, with corresponding increases in phosphorylation of focal adhesion kinase and paxillin. This is the level at which the mechanistic case is strongest, although the work is concentrated in a small number of research groups.

Animal evidence

Studies in living non-human animals.

This is by far the largest part of the evidence base. A 2025 systematic review screened 544 articles published between 1993 and 2024 and included 36 studies, of which 35 were preclinical. Rodent models span tendon, ligament, muscle and bone injury, fistula healing and gastrointestinal ulceration. A separate multi-species toxicology package in mice, rats, rabbits and dogs reported no serious toxicity. Much of the efficacy literature originates from a small cluster of collaborating groups, which limits independent replication.

Human observational evidence

Studies observing people without assigning an intervention.

There is very little. The 2025 systematic review identified a single clinical study out of 544 screened: a retrospective series of twelve patients given the peptide for chronic knee pain, without a control group, blinding or a standardised outcome measure. A separate 2025 pilot report described intravenous infusion in two healthy adults and found no measurable change in cardiac, hepatic, renal, thyroid or glucose markers. That is substantially the entirety of the published human record.

Clinical-trial evidence

Studies assigning an intervention to human participants.

No published, peer-reviewed randomised controlled trial exists for any indication. A phase 2 programme under the development code PL 14736 investigated rectally administered peptide in ulcerative colitis and was presented at a conference in 2005, but full results were never published in a peer-reviewed journal. A phase 1 safety study registered in 2015 has no published results.

Study limitations

  • Almost the entire efficacy base is rodent: a 2025 systematic review found 35 of 36 included studies were preclinical.
  • The single identified human efficacy study is a retrospective, uncontrolled series of twelve patients with no blinding, no placebo and no standardised endpoint. The only prospective human safety report has two participants.
  • A large share of the preclinical literature comes from a small cluster of collaborating research groups, so independent replication is limited.
  • Material supplied outside a regulated supply chain is not subject to pharmacopoeial identity, purity or sterility standards, so the contents of any given vial are unverified.
  • There are no published human pharmacokinetic data and no data on exposure beyond short durations.

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 2 — definition of a 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

Human safety data are essentially absent. What exists is a multi-species animal toxicology package reporting no serious toxicity, one retrospective series of twelve patients, and one uncontrolled infusion pilot in two adults. None of this can characterise adverse-event frequency, long-term effects or immunogenicity in people. Absence of reported harm in a literature this small is not evidence of safety.

References