References for the peptide guides

The sources below are the publications and official record cited across Peptide Asia. The linked titles identify the original works. Their study designs differ: a clinical trial, a review, a cell experiment, and an observational cohort cannot be read as equivalent evidence.

The descriptions explain why each source appears here. They do not replace the paper’s methods, limitations, or full results. For a claim about a specific compound, the relevant guide supplies the immediate context and safety discussion. The comparison explains the differences between the main kinds of evidence.

• The 2020 World J Virol overview of published work on thymosin alpha-1. Dominari A, Hathaway Iii D, Pandav K, et al.. World J Virol, 2020. A broad clinical and historical review. It provides context for thymalfasin and reported adverse effects, but predates the later TESTS trial.
• BMJ’s 2025 TESTS trial testing thymosin alpha-1 against placebo in sepsis. Wu J, Pei F, Zhou L, et al.. BMJ, 2025. The large controlled sepsis trial discussed throughout the site. It found no statistically significant difference in 28-day all-cause mortality.
• Blood’s 2006 study of thymosin alpha-1, dendritic cells, and immune regulation. Romani L, Bistoni F, Montagnoli C, et al.. Blood, 2006. Mechanistic immune research used to explain dendritic-cell activity and regulation. A pathway finding cannot establish a general benefit in healthy adults.
• The 2025 Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med assessment of BPC-157 evidence for tissue healing. McGuire FP, et al.. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med, 2025. A narrative review placing repair findings beside the small human evidence base. Its caution about replication is relevant to broad claims.
• World J Gastroenterol’s 2004 experiment examining BPC-157 in rats with gastric ulcers. Xue XC, et al.. World J Gastroenterol, 2004. An experimental rat study of gastric ulcers and administration routes. It is cited as animal evidence, without a human treatment recommendation.
• Front Pharmacol’s 2022 animal study following BPC-157 through distribution, breakdown, and elimination. He L, et al.. Front Pharmacol, 2022. A study of distribution and breakdown in rats and dogs. Its half-life finding does not establish a human treatment schedule.
• J Mol Med (Berl)’s 2017 experiments linking BPC-157 with vessel growth and VEGFR2 activity. Hsieh MJ, et al.. J Mol Med (Berl), 2017. Vessel-growth experiments in animal models and cultured human vascular cells. The inclusion of human cells does not make it a clinical trial.
• The 2025 Altern Ther Health Med report tracking safety in two adults given intravenous BPC-157. Lee E, Burgess K. Altern Ther Health Med, 2025. A two-adult intravenous safety pilot. The absence of observed adverse events in this sample cannot establish long-term safety or injury healing.
• The 2023 Journal of Translational Medicine review connecting MOTS-c with metabolism, aging, and stress responses. Wan W, Zhang L, Lin Y, Rao X, Wang X, Hua F, Ying J. Journal of Translational Medicine, 2023. A review of MOTS-c stress and metabolic biology. It supplies a framework for the cellular findings without establishing administered treatment benefit.
• Cell Metabolism’s 2018 experiments tracing MOTS-c into the nucleus during energy stress. Kim KH, Son JM, Benayoun BA, Lee C. Cell Metabolism, 2018. Cell experiments on movement of MOTS-c into the nucleus during metabolic stress. The evidence concerns gene regulation rather than clinical effectiveness.
• Nature Communications’ 2021 investigation of exercise, MOTS-c, and age-related changes in muscle. Reynolds JC, Lai RW, Woodhead JST, Joly JH, Mitchell CJ, Cameron-Smith D, Lu R, Cohen P, Graham NA, Benayoun BA, Merry TL, Lee C. Nature Communications, 2021. Research connecting exercise and endogenous MOTS-c with mouse performance experiments. Animal findings are kept separate from human treatment claims.
• iScience’s 2024 experiments on MOTS-c binding to CK2 and effects in skeletal muscle. Kumagai H, Kim SJ, Miller B, et al.. iScience, 2024. Work on CK2 as a molecular target, including cell-free assays and mouse experiments. It describes an experimental mechanism with clinical questions remaining.
• The 2024 Blood Purification cohort relating MOTS-c measurements to risk during hemodialysis. Bolignano D, Greco M, Presta P, Duni A, et al.. Blood Purification, 2024. A prospective cohort measuring circulating MOTS-c in people receiving hemodialysis. It is biomarker research, not a trial administering the peptide.
• N Engl J Med’s 2021 STEP 1 report on weekly semaglutide for weight management. Wilding JPH, et al. (STEP 1 Study Group). N Engl J Med, 2021. The STEP 1 weight-management trial. Its average results belong to the studied population and conditions, including a lifestyle intervention.
• The 2023 SELECT heart-outcomes report in N Engl J Med, involving semaglutide. Lincoff AM, et al. (SELECT Trial Investigators). N Engl J Med, 2023. The SELECT cardiovascular-outcomes trial in people with established cardiovascular disease and excess weight, without diabetes. Relative risk requires that context.
• FLOW findings on semaglutide and kidney disease, from N Engl J Med in 2024. Perkovic V, et al. (FLOW Trial Committees and Investigators). N Engl J Med, 2024. The FLOW kidney-outcomes trial in people with type 2 diabetes and chronic kidney disease. Its question differs from a weight-management trial.
• The 2021 Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) review examining semaglutide’s safety record. Smits MM, Van Raalte DH. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne), 2021. A review of clinical and pharmacovigilance safety findings. It informs the gastrointestinal, gallbladder, and other cautions on the semaglutide page.
• The 2025 SURMOUNT-5 comparison of two medicines, reported in N Engl J Med. Aronne LJ, et al. (SURMOUNT-5 Investigators). N Engl J Med, 2025. The SURMOUNT-5 direct comparison of tirzepatide and semaglutide. Its weight outcome does not rank treatments for every person or health condition.
• FDA’s April 2026 account of compounding ingredients with unresolved safety risks. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Content current as of April 22, 2026. The withdrawn-nominations table retains safety concerns; it does not establish clearance, Category 1 placement, or permission to compound.

Publication dates help place findings in order. A review can summarize only the research available when it was written. A later trial can change the confidence attached to an earlier hypothesis. A study title may also sound broader than its population or methods justify, so the design and measured outcome deserve attention.

The regulatory source below is described with its own content date. It does not establish a date for an individual substance’s withdrawal. The absence of a medicine’s approval remains separate from the question of whether an ingredient nomination is under review. The contact page explains how to report a source mismatch or factual correction.