AOD-9604 5mg

For research teams evaluating where to buy AOD-9604 for research, the central question is whether the product page gives enough documentation for laboratory review. This Pure Lab Peptides guide frames AOD-9604 as a research-use-only peptide and keeps the focus on compound identity, published literature, COA review, analytical testing, and batch traceability. The documentation supports laboratory evaluation, not conclusions about use outside research.

• AOD-9604 is cataloged by PubChem as a synthetic peptide with the sequence YLRIVQCRSVEGSCGF, formula C78H123N23O23S2, and molecular weight of 1815.1 g/mol [1].
• AOD 9604, AOD-9604, and AOD9604 are naming variants that should map back to the same canonical research compound record [1].
• Published research describes AOD9604 as a C-terminal human growth hormone fragment with an additional N-terminal tyrosine residue [3].
• Published AOD-9604 literature includes metabolic pathway and peptide fragment research; it does not establish consumer-use outcomes [4] [5].
• COA review should check peptide identity, purity method, lot number, testing date, and whether analytical records match the product listing [11] [12].
• HPLC, LC-MS, and mass spectrometry are useful documentation concepts because they support peptide separation, identity review, and synthetic peptide characterization [14] [15] [16].

Fast Answer: What Should Researchers Check Before They Buy AOD-9604 for Research?

Researchers evaluating where to buy AOD-9604 for research should first review RUO labeling, batch-specific COA availability, peptide identity data, purity testing, and lot traceability. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. AOD-9604 is cataloged as a synthetic peptide with sequence and molecular-weight data that should match supplier documentation [1].

What Documentation Should Come First on a Research Product Page?

The first review layer is simple: name, lot number, COA, analytical method, purity record, and label consistency. If these records do not align, the procurement review should pause until the documentation story is clear.

A peptide listing should also make the compound identity easy to verify against independent records. PubChem provides a useful outside reference for AOD-9604 naming, sequence, formula, and molecular weight [1].

Why Does Research-Use-Only Labeling Matter Before Procurement?

RUO language defines the scope of the page. FDA’s RUO guidance for in vitro diagnostic products is category-specific, but it illustrates the broader principle that labeling and promotion must not drift into non-research positioning [10].

RUO labeling identifies the material as intended for laboratory research. Analytical testing and supplier documentation support evaluation of the specific lot.

What Is AOD-9604 in Research Literature?

AOD-9604 is a synthetic peptide listed in PubChem with the sequence YLRIVQCRSVEGSCGF and molecular weight of 1815.1 g/mol [1]. Cox et al. describe AOD9604 as a peptide consisting of the C-terminal fragment of human growth hormone from amino acids 177–191 with an added tyrosine residue at the N-terminus [3].

Peptide Identity and Research Classification

The compound belongs in peptide fragment research because its literature context is tied to a defined segment of human growth hormone. UniProt lists human somatotropin under GH1 and provides the canonical sequence context for the full protein entry [2].

For product-page purposes, the key identity fields are the compound name, naming variants, peptide sequence, formula, molecular weight, and batch-specific records. These should stay consistent across the product listing, COA, and laboratory records.

How Does AOD 9604 Relate to Human Growth Hormone Fragment Literature?

AOD 9604 appears in the literature as a modified C-terminal fragment connected to human growth hormone sequence studies [3] [9]. Earlier C-terminal sequence work examined hGH 177–191 in metabolic model settings, which helps explain why AOD-9604 is discussed in the same literature lane [9].

That connection helps classify the compound; it does not establish the properties of a supplier’s product.

Why Does Canonical Naming Help Research Buyers?

Canonical naming reduces confusion. AOD-9604, AOD 9604, and AOD9604 can appear across databases, papers, COAs, and product listings.

For procurement teams, the best practice is to map every naming variant back to the same compound identity record. That helps catch label mismatches, incomplete COAs, or supplier pages that rely on vague peptide descriptions.

AOD-9604 Peptide Background for Laboratory Research

AOD-9604 is best understood as a research peptide with a defined sequence and a literature trail tied to peptide fragment studies. Laboratory evaluation depends on compound identity, experimental context, and lot-specific records.

Where Does the C-Terminal Sequence Fit in Peptide Fragment Research?

The C-terminal connection matters because the compound is discussed in relation to hGH fragment literature [3] [9]. PubChem’s AOD-9604 entry records the sequence and disulfide-linked peptide structure details, while UniProt provides the larger human somatotropin protein context [1] [2].

This is useful for documentation review. It gives researchers an outside reference for verifying sequence, identity, and naming consistency.

What Does Metabolic Pathway Research Context Add?

Metabolic pathway studies provide context for interpreting AOD-9604 research. Ng et al. studied AOD9604 in a preclinical metabolic research setting, and Heffernan et al. later examined receptor-pathway context in knockout models [4] [5].

How Should Researchers Interpret Mechanism of Action Context?

How Do Mechanistic Models Differ From Product Claims?

A mechanistic model explains a proposed pathway in a research setting. A product claim tells the buyer what a product will do.

That distinction matters for AOD-9604 because published studies have examined pathway signals, receptor context, and peptide fragment behavior in specific models [4] [5] [6].

How Does Preclinical Literature Describe Pathway Signals?

Heffernan et al. reported beta-3 adrenergic receptor RNA expression findings in a preclinical knockout-model study involving hGH and AOD9604 [5]. A separate study discussed hGH receptor binding and cell-proliferation assays as part of AOD9604 pathway characterization [6].

These findings help define research questions. They do not establish product performance for an RUO listing.

Why Does Receptor Activation Language Require Precision?

Receptor activation language needs care because receptor systems vary by model, tissue type, assay design, and species context. Strosberg’s review describes beta-3 adrenergic receptors as a distinct adrenergic receptor subtype with structural and functional properties that differ from beta-1 and beta-2 receptors [18].

How Does Published Literature Frame AOD 9604 Peptide Research?

Published literature frames the AOD 9604 peptide through compound identity, C-terminal hGH fragment context, metabolic pathway models, receptor-pathway studies, and analytical detection work [3] [4] [5].

What Can Preclinical Literature Support?

Preclinical literature can support background context, model selection, and pathway hypotheses. Ng et al. and Heffernan et al. provide examples of AOD9604 being evaluated in metabolic and receptor-pathway models [4] [5].

The correct RUO interpretation is limited.

What Are the Limits of Translating These Findings?

Wilding’s review and Stier et al.’s human study summary provide evidence context [7] [8]. Some published literature outside the scope of RUO product use has examined this compound class in human study settings. Those findings do not establish suitability of research-use-only materials for human use.

How Should Higher-Level Evidence Stay Source-Based?

Evaluate higher-level evidence by source type, research setting, measured endpoints, and limitations.

How Should Research Literature Stay Separate From Product Claims?

Research literature and product claims serve different functions.

Why Should Study Findings Not Become Product Claims?

Study findings are tied to their models, methods, and assumptions. Interpret AOD-9604 literature within those source-specific limits.

How Does Product Documentation Support Procurement?

COAs, analytical testing records, lot numbers, labels, and storage notes provide information for a laboratory procurement review.

The buyer’s question becomes: “Can this material be documented for laboratory research?”

Why Does COA Documentation Matter for AOD-9604?

COA documentation matters because it ties a product listing to batch-level analytical records. FDA’s analytical-method guidance describes analytical procedures as supporting documentation of identity, quality, purity, and related attributes in regulated submission contexts [12].

What Should Batch-Specific COA Details Show?

A batch-specific COA should show the compound name, lot number, testing date, purity method, identity method, and laboratory source. The lot number should match the product label and any supporting supplier documents.

The COA should also be recent enough to make sense for the listed batch. If a COA is generic, undated, or mismatched, it should not be treated as a complete documentation record.

How Does Peptide Purity Appear in COA Review?

Peptide purity is usually tied to a stated analytical method. For peptides, HPLC is widely used for separation and analysis, and reversed-phase HPLC is a common technique in peptide purification and analytical workflows [14].

A purity value is more useful when the chromatogram, method conditions, and batch match are available. A single percentage without method context is not a full identity review.

Where Do Lot Numbers Support Traceability?

Lot numbers connect the listed material to the COA and related records. They make it easier for a laboratory buyer to verify whether the documentation belongs to the same batch being reviewed.

Traceability also supports internal laboratory records. It lets procurement teams record which documentation was checked and where uncertainty remains.

What Can Analytical Testing Confirm for a Research Peptide?

Analytical testing can support identity and purity review when the method, sample, and batch record are clear. ICH Q2(R2) provides a framework for validating analytical procedures, and Q14 covers science-based analytical procedure development [11] [13].

Documentation-focused verification sequence:

1. Verify that the compound name, lot number, and label match across documents.
2. Review the batch-specific COA.
3. Check whether the purity testing method is listed.
4. Confirm whether identity testing is supported by LC-MS or another suitable analytical method.
5. Review chromatogram or mass data when available.
6. Check the COA date and laboratory source.
7. Record storage and handling requirements in a laboratory record.

How HPLC Supports Purity Review

HPLC can separate peptide components and support purity review through chromatographic data. Mant et al. describe HPLC as a versatile approach for peptide isolation, purification, separation, and structural-characterization support [14].

For COA review, the key is context. The chromatogram, retention time, integration method, and batch match all affect how useful the purity value is.

How LC-MS Supports Peptide Identity Verification

LC-MS can support identity verification by pairing liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry. Prabhala et al. describe mass spectrometry as well suited for synthetic peptide identity and purity analysis, including LC-MS and MALDI-TOF-MS workflows [15].

For AOD-9604, LC-MS documentation should be compared against expected molecular-weight data and the listed peptide identity. That comparison is a documentation check, not a product claim.

Why Mass Spectrometry Adds Confidence to Identity Review

Mass spectrometry adds confidence because it can measure mass-related signals and, in tandem workflows, support peptide-sequence interpretation. Steen and Mann describe how tandem MS can generate partial amino-acid-sequence information and how database matching should be interpreted carefully [16].

Mass data are powerful, but they still need method context, reference expectations, and batch-specific records.

Supplier Documentation Review for AOD-9604 Procurement

What Research Buyers Should Compare Across Listings

Research buyers should compare compound naming, peptide identity fields, COA availability, testing method, lot number, storage notes, and RUO labeling. If one listing uses AOD 9604 while another uses AOD9604, the documentation should still connect to the same canonical compound identity.

How Labeling Consistency Supports RUO Positioning

FDA’s RUO guidance for IVD products shows how labeling and surrounding promotion can affect research-only positioning in that specific regulatory context [10].

Why Third-Party Testing Documentation Matters

Third-party testing documentation can add value when the laboratory source, method, date, and batch match are clear. ISO explains that ISO/IEC 17025 enables testing and calibration laboratories to demonstrate competent operation and valid outputs, which is relevant when evaluating laboratory-source claims [17].

Storage and Handling Documentation for Research Materials

Storage and handling documentation helps laboratories preserve record consistency after procurement.

What Storage Notes Should Clarify

Storage notes should clarify temperature range, light sensitivity when relevant, seal status, and documentation date.

Storage documentation should be specific enough for laboratory recordkeeping.

Common Misunderstandings About AOD-9604 Research

Keep these distinctions in mind when evaluating research materials:

• Published literature does not establish the properties of a supplier’s product.
• Preclinical findings should not be converted into claims about an RUO material.
• A purity percentage does not prove complete compound identity without method context [14] [15].
• A COA should be batch-specific, not generic.
• Pathway relevance does not equal a product claim.

Research Procurement Checklist for AOD-9604 Peptide Listings

The following checklist gives research buyers a repeatable path for reviewing laboratory procurement records.

Procurement documentation checklist:

• Verify that the compound is labeled for research use only.
• Review the batch-specific certificate of analysis.
• Confirm that purity data are supported by analytical testing.
• Check that the lot number on the COA matches the product documentation.
• Compare compound name, molecular weight, and sequence across documentation [1].
• Assess whether the product page avoids non-RUO claims.
• Record storage and handling conditions in a laboratory record.
• Note any uncertainty before procurement is finalized.

What Documentation Supports Technical Review

Technical review is supported by COA data, identity testing, purity method, lot number, product label, storage notes, and supplier documentation. FDA and ICH analytical guidance both emphasize that method documentation and validation principles matter when analytical data support quality-related decisions [11] [12] [13].

For a research peptide, the same logic helps procurement teams ask better questions.

How Researchers Assess Supplier Transparency

Supplier transparency is not just a marketing statement. It is shown through accessible documentation, clear batch matching, stated testing methods, and label consistency.

Where Procurement Notes Should Record Uncertainties

Procurement notes should record missing COA data, unclear method descriptions, label mismatches, or storage-documentation gaps. These notes help the lab decide whether more documentation is needed.

The goal is not to overcomplicate the buying process. It is to make sure the research buyer is comparing records rather than relying on claims.

A Documentation Review Workflow

How to Review Research Material Records

Start with compound identity, then review literature context, COA documentation, analytical testing, traceability, and storage notes.

What Documentation Supports AOD-9604 Procurement?

AOD-9604 procurement decisions should be supported by batch-specific documentation, not broad claims. Researchers should be able to review the COA, confirm analytical testing context, and match lot details to the product listing.

Where Next-Step Review Should Remain Documentation-Focused

The next step is to review the product-page documentation, COA details, analytical testing context, and RUO labeling before evaluating this compound for laboratory research.

Pure Lab Peptides supplies compounds for laboratory research use only. Products are not intended for human or animal consumption, diagnostic use, therapeutic use, clinical use, veterinary use, or as food, drugs, cosmetics, dietary supplements, or household products. Researchers are responsible for ensuring lawful, appropriate handling and use in accordance with applicable regulations and institutional guidelines.

Review batch-specific documentation before selecting any research-use-only peptide. Explore Pure Lab Peptides for RUO peptide compounds with research-focused product information and available documentation.

FAQs

What is AOD-9604 in research literature?

AOD-9604 is described in research literature as a peptide-based compound connected to C-terminal human growth hormone fragment studies. PubChem lists AOD-9604 with a defined peptide sequence and molecular-weight record [1]. Earlier literature also discusses the 176-191 sequence region as part of the compound’s research context [3].

What should researchers consider before they buy AOD-9604 for research?

Researchers should consider whether the AOD-9604 listing provides clear research documentation before procurement. That review should include RUO labeling, COA availability, peptide identity records, analytical testing details, lot traceability, and batch-specific documentation. The procurement question should stay focused on research purposes and documentation quality.

Why does compound characterization matter for AOD-9604?

Compound characterization matters for AOD-9604 because it helps connect the product listing to verifiable identity records. Researchers can compare the listed name, sequence, molecular weight, COA details, and testing records. This supports research documentation review without turning published literature into product claims.

How should published literature be interpreted for AOD-9604?

Published literature should be interpreted as research context for AOD-9604, not as product positioning. Studies may describe model-specific observations, peptide fragment background, or receptor signaling context, but those findings should remain separate from RUO product-page claims. A safer review keeps the focus on source quality and documentation.

What documentation should researchers review for AOD-9604 materials?

Researchers should review AOD-9604 documentation that connects the product label, COA, lot number, peptide identity, and analytical testing record. HPLC may support purity review, while LC-MS may support identity review when paired with suitable batch documentation [14] [15]. Missing or mismatched records should be noted before procurement.

Researchers Cited in This Guide

The researchers listed below are cited for relevant published work. Their inclusion does not imply that they wrote, reviewed, or endorsed this guide or Pure Lab Peptides products.

Frank M. Ng

Author profile: PubMed Author Search

Frank M. Ng’s published work is central to the AOD9604 peptide-fragment literature discussed in this article. His research record includes AOD9604-specific publications connected to human growth hormone fragment research, biochemical context, and pathway-focused interpretation.

Selected publications:

• A peer-reviewed study relevant to AOD9604 peptide-fragment research — Hormone Research, 2000. DOI: 10.1159/000053183. PMID: [11146367]
• A receptor-pathway model study relevant to AOD9604 research context — Endocrinology, 2001. DOI: 10.1210/endo.142.12.8522. PMID: [11713213]

Roger J. Summers

Author profile: Monash University Profile

Roger J. Summers’s published work provides background on beta-adrenoceptor literature, G protein-coupled receptor signaling models, and pathway research related to AOD9604. These model-specific findings do not establish the properties of a supplier’s product.

Selected publications:

• A receptor-pathway model study relevant to AOD9604 research context — Endocrinology, 2001. DOI: 10.1210/endo.142.12.8522. PMID: [11713213]
• Atypical pharmacologies at β-adrenoceptors — British Journal of Pharmacology, 2008. DOI: 10.1038/bjp.2008.293. PMID: [18641673]

REFERENCES

1. National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubChem Compound Summary: AOD-9604. PubChem. Updated 2025.
2. UniProt Consortium. GH1 – Somatotropin – Homo sapiens. UniProtKB/Swiss-Prot. Accessed 2026.
3. Cox HD, Smeal SJ, Hughes CM, Cox JE, Eichner D. Detection and in vitro metabolism of AOD9604. Drug Testing and Analysis. 2015. PMID: 25208511.
4. Ng FM, Sun J, Sharma L, Libinaka R, Jiang WJ, Gianello R. Metabolic studies of a synthetic lipolytic domain of human growth hormone. Hormone Research. 2000. DOI: 10.1159/000053183. PMID: 11146367.
5. Heffernan M, Summers RJ, Thorburn A, Ogru E, Gianello R, Jiang WJ, Ng FM. AOD9604 receptor-pathway study in knockout models. Endocrinology. 2001. DOI: 10.1210/endo.142.12.8522. PMID: 11713213.
6. Heffernan MA, Thorburn AW, Fam B, Summers R, Conway-Campbell B, Waters MJ, Ng FM. Modified C-terminal hGH fragment study in metabolic models. International Journal of Obesity. 2001. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ijo.0801740.
7. Wilding J. AOD-9604 Metabolic. Current Opinion in Investigational Drugs. 2004. PMID: 15134286.
8. Stier H, Vos E, Kenley D. Safety and Tolerability of the Hexadecapeptide AOD9604 in Humans. Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism. 2013. DOI: 10.4021/jem157w.
9. Wu Z, Ng FM. C-terminal hGH sequence 177-191 study. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology International. 1993. PMID: 8358331.
10. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Distribution of In Vitro Diagnostic Products Labeled for Research Use Only or Investigational Use Only. FDA Guidance. 2013.
11. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Q2(R2) Validation of Analytical Procedures. FDA Guidance adopting ICH Q2(R2). 2024.
12. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Analytical Procedures and Methods Validation for Drugs and Biologics. FDA Guidance. 2015.
13. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Q14 Analytical Procedure Development. FDA Guidance adopting ICH Q14. 2024.
14. Mant CT, Chen Y, Yan Z, Popa TV. HPLC Analysis and Purification of Peptides. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2007. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-59745-430-8_1.
15. Prabhala BK, Mirza O, Højrup P, Hansen PR. Characterization of Synthetic Peptides by Mass Spectrometry. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2015. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4939-2999-3_9. PMID: 26424265.
16. Steen H, Mann M. The ABC’s and XYZ’s of peptide sequencing. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology. 2004. DOI: 10.1038/nrm1468.
17. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025 — Testing and calibration laboratories. ISO. 2017; confirmed current in 2023.
18. Strosberg AD. Structure and function of the beta 3-adrenergic receptor. Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology. 1997. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.37.1.421. PMID: 9131260.

---

Research Disclaimer

This material is supplied strictly for in vitro laboratory research and is not for human or veterinary use. Published studies describe specific experimental materials, models, and methods; they do not establish the safety, efficacy, or suitability of this catalog product for non-research use. Review the original publications and the lot-specific analytical documentation independently.