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

GHK-Cu

Also known as Copper tripeptide-1, Glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine copper

Early human — evidence level 3 of 4: Early human evidenceExperimental — UK regulatory status: Experimental — not authorised for human use in the UK

Overview

The copper complex of a naturally occurring human tripeptide, used as a topical cosmetic ingredient and studied in tissue repair.

Category
Peptide
Highest evidence level identified
Early human evidence
Last scientifically reviewed
20 August 2026
Last regulatory review
20 August 2026

Mechanism under investigation

GHK-Cu is the copper(II) complex of the naturally occurring tripeptide glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine, which occurs in human plasma. It is proposed to act as a copper-delivery ligand and to influence extracellular matrix turnover, including collagen and glycosaminoglycan synthesis and matrix metalloproteinase balance. Gene-expression profiling describes broad modulation of tissue-repair and antioxidant transcriptional programmes, though these are descriptive datasets rather than functional demonstrations of benefit.

Research areas

  • Extracellular matrix biology
  • Wound repair models

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.

This is where the evidence is densest. Fibroblast cultures show concentration-dependent increases in collagen and glycosaminoglycan synthesis without changes in cell number, alongside reported effects on fibroblast migration and reductions in inflammatory cytokines. Microarray work describes the tripeptide altering expression of a large fraction of human genes.

Animal evidence

Studies in living non-human animals.

A reasonable body of rodent, rabbit and canine work exists, covering accelerated wound closure and remodelling in skin-injury models and nerve regeneration in rats. Results are generally favourable, but the models are acute, small-animal and short in duration. A 2025 review notes the absence of validation in chronic wound models in medium or large experimental animals.

Human observational evidence

Studies observing people without assigning an intervention.

Thinner and of poorer quality than its citation frequency implies. Figures repeated across the popular literature — a 12-week facial cream study in 71 women, an eye cream study in 41 women, collagen increases in 70 per cent of treated women — trace back to conference presentations and industry-sponsored work rather than to indexed, peer-reviewed primary publications.

Clinical-trial evidence

Studies assigning an intervention to human participants.

Very limited, and not straightforwardly positive. The clearest indexed randomised controlled trial, of topical copper tripeptide complex after laser resurfacing, had thirteen completers and found no statistically significant difference in erythema resolution or in objective measures of wrinkles and skin quality. The only significant result was higher patient satisfaction. There is no controlled human trial evidence for injected or systemic use.

Study limitations

  • Human evidence is markedly weaker than its citation frequency implies. The most-quoted figures come from conference presentations and industry-sponsored studies rather than indexed peer-reviewed trial reports.
  • The clearest indexed randomised human trial found no significant objective benefit and had thirteen completers.
  • Animal work is confined to acute wounds in small animals over short durations, with no validation in chronic wound models in larger species.
  • Practically all evidence concerns topical or wound-bed application. There is no controlled human evidence for injected or systemic use.
  • The complex is chemically unstable and skin penetration is poor, so results are strongly formulation-dependent and do not generalise between preparations.
  • A substantial proportion of the review literature is authored by the compound’s principal proponent, who holds commercial interests in it.

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: Regulation 1223/2009 and the Cosmetic Products Enforcement Regulations 2013: Great Britain (opens gov.uk in a new tab) (Office for Product Safety and Standards)

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

Topical use has a long history as a cosmetic ingredient at low concentrations without a prominent safety signal emerging. That history says nothing about injection: for injected or systemic use, human safety data are essentially absent, and copper has real systemic toxicity potential at excess exposure, which makes the evidence gap material rather than theoretical.

References