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

SNAP-8

Also known as Acetyl octapeptide-3

In vitro — evidence level 1 of 4: In-vitro evidenceExperimental — UK regulatory status: Experimental — not authorised for human use in the UK

Overview

A cosmetic peptide with a recognised topical ingredient identity, and no published study of it as a single agent.

Category
Peptide
Highest evidence level identified
In-vitro evidence
Last scientifically reviewed
20 August 2026
Last regulatory review
20 August 2026

Mechanism under investigation

SNAP-8 is a synthetic acetylated octapeptide developed as an elongated analogue of acetyl hexapeptide-8. It is proposed to mimic part of a synaptic protein and act as a competitive inhibitor of the complex that drives neurotransmitter vesicle release, thereby reducing the muscle contraction that contributes to expression lines. This mechanism appears in review literature but is attributed there to manufacturer data rather than to independent published experiments, so it should be read as proposed rather than demonstrated.

Research areas

  • Cosmetic peptide chemistry

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.

No primary published study of this peptide alone was identified. The quantitative inhibition figure that circulates is sourced in the review literature to the manufacturer’s own website rather than to a peer-reviewed experiment.

Animal evidence

Studies in living non-human animals.

None identified.

Human observational evidence

Studies observing people without assigning an intervention.

None identified.

Clinical-trial evidence

Studies assigning an intervention to human participants.

No trial of this peptide as a single agent. It appears only inside multi-ingredient cosmetic products. The clearest example is an uncontrolled single-centre study of a microneedle patch in which it was one of five actives, so no conclusion about the peptide itself can be drawn from it.

Study limitations

  • The evidence level is generous. No isolated study of this peptide was identified at any level; every human dataset found tests it inside a multi-ingredient formulation, so its individual contribution is unmeasurable.
  • The proposed mechanism is carried across by analogy from a related peptide. No published independent experiment confirms it for this one.
  • The available formulation studies are uncontrolled, single-centre and short, using instrumental surrogate endpoints with no vehicle-only comparator.
  • Much supporting material is manufacturer-generated and not indexed in peer-reviewed databases, so it cannot be independently appraised.

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: Commission Decision (EU) 2019/701 establishing a glossary of common ingredient names for use in the labelling of cosmetic products (assimilated Great Britain version) (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 opinion specific to this peptide was identified from either the Cosmetic Ingredient Review or the European scientific committee. The one clinical formulation study reported the product was well tolerated with no skin reactions, but that finding attaches to the complete five-active patch rather than to the peptide. The absence of reported harm reflects limited investigation rather than demonstrated safety, and nothing in the published record speaks to any non-topical presentation.

References