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 · Combination

BPC-157 and TB-500 combination

Also known as Wolverine stack

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

Overview

A two-peptide mixture. The single study that tested it against its own constituents found no additive benefit.

Category
Combination
Highest evidence level identified
Animal evidence
Last scientifically reviewed
20 August 2026
Last regulatory review
20 August 2026

Mechanism under investigation

This is a mixture of BPC-157, a synthetic pentadecapeptide studied preclinically for angiogenic and granulation responses, and TB-500, an acetylated seven-residue fragment of thymosin beta-4 containing the actin-binding motif. The rationale offered for combining them is that they converge on tissue repair from different molecular starting points. Combination pharmacology is not the sum of its parts, and here that caution is not theoretical: the one published test of the combination found that convergence produced no additive effect.

Research areas

  • Tendon repair models
  • Combination pharmacology

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 specific to the combination.

Animal evidence

Studies in living non-human animals.

One study exists, and it is the only direct test of any of the marketed peptide blends. Thirty-two rats were randomised after standardised Achilles tendon transection and repair into four arms — control, each peptide alone, and the two combined — with biomechanical and histological assessment at four weeks. The combination arm showed no significant difference from control on load to failure. TB-500 alone did reach significance on that biomechanical endpoint, while the combination did not. The authors state that combined treatment did not confer additional benefits compared with either agent alone, and suggest the absence of additive effects may reflect convergence on shared downstream pathways.

Human observational evidence

Studies observing people without assigning an intervention.

None.

Clinical-trial evidence

Studies assigning an intervention to human participants.

None. No registered or published human trial of the combination exists.

Study limitations

  • The single combination study describes itself as exploratory: a rat model, one four-week timepoint, four animals per group for histology, no functional assessment, and load to failure as the only biomechanical measure.
  • One negative animal study is not proof of no effect. It is, however, the only direct evidence, and it does not support the synergy claim — so the honest statement is that the hypothesis has been tested once and was not supported.
  • There is no standardised composition. No defined ratio exists, vendors differ, and the ratio tested in that study is not necessarily any commercial product’s ratio.
  • TB-500 is routinely described as thymosin beta-4. It is a seven-residue fragment of that 43-residue protein, so claims imported from the parent protein’s literature do not apply.
  • An analysis of 6,441 directly-marketed research-grade peptide samples across fourteen compounds, including both of these, found between 41.6 and 71.1 per cent failed basic quality criteria and 15 per cent carried measurable endotoxin.

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 human safety data exist for the combination. The one animal study reports no combination-specific signal but was neither designed nor powered as a toxicology study, and four weeks in young healthy rats cannot inform human risk. That study also removes the usual risk and benefit trade: if the combination confers no additive benefit over a single agent, any incremental risk, cost and impurity exposure from adding the second peptide is unrewarded. Unregulated product quality remains the dominant identifiable hazard.

References