Ara-290 16mg

This guide covers ARA-290 identity, research literature, and research-use-only procurement documentation for laboratory buyers. ARA-290 is commonly associated with the compound name cibinetide, and PubChem lists cibinetide as an 11-mer peptide with the synonym ARA290 [1]. Researchers should compare peptide identity, COA records, analytical testing, lot traceability, and RUO labeling. Published research does not verify the performance of a supplier’s material.

• ARA-290 is a synthetic peptide listed by PubChem with the sequence XEQLERALNSS, molecular formula C51H84N16O21, and computed molecular weight of 1257.3 g/mol [1].
• Published research describes ARA-290 in relation to erythropoietin-derived, non-erythropoietic peptide design and tissue-protective receptor literature [2].
• Research buyers should check RUO labeling, batch-specific COA documentation, peptide identity data, HPLC purity review, LC-MS or comparable mass evidence, and lot-level traceability.
• Literature discussing receptor signaling, cytokine activity, inflammatory pathways, or small nerve fiber metrics provides scientific context, not verification of a supplier’s material [3].
• Analytical documentation should be reviewed through established method-validation concepts such as specificity, accuracy, precision, and analytical procedure development [16].
• COA, purity, identity, storage, and batch documentation matter because research procurement decisions depend on traceable records, not marketing claims.

Fast Answer: What Should Researchers Check Before They Buy ARA-290 for Research?

Researchers looking to buy ARA-290 for research should prioritize RUO labeling, batch-specific COA documentation, peptide identity data, HPLC purity review, LC-MS or comparable mass evidence, lot traceability, and consistent supplier records. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. Scientific literature does not establish a supplier’s product performance.

ARA-290 identity and batch records

Before you buy ARA-290 peptide for research, check that the compound name, lot number, COA, label, purity method, and identity records describe the same material.

Compound identity is an initial documentation check. PubChem lists cibinetide as ARA290 and provides formula, sequence, and molecular weight data for comparison with supplier records [1].

Documentation Signals That Should Come First

The first documentation signal is a clear RUO label. FDA guidance for RUO-labeled IVD products is not a peptide-specific rule, but it is a useful official reference for how research labeling is separated from diagnostic intent [14].

The next signal is batch specificity. A COA should connect to a lot number, test date, method, and laboratory record so research teams can tell whether the document applies to the exact material under review.

RUO Labeling Before Research Procurement

RUO labeling should be visible before procurement review begins. FDA’s IVD labeling page describes the RUO statement “For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures” in the IVD context, which reinforces the broader principle that research labels should not drift into diagnostic positioning [15].

It also prevents scientific literature from being misread as an intended-use statement for a product listing.

Interpreting ARA-290 Research Evidence

ARA-290 literature includes mechanistic, preclinical, and human study settings. Each has distinct limits on what it can establish.

The practical rule is simple. Use literature to define research context, then use product documentation to evaluate the listed research material.

What Is ARA-290 in Research Literature?

ARA-290 is commonly identified with cibinetide, a peptide entry in PubChem that lists ARA290, PHBSP, and PH-BSP among its synonyms [1]. PubChem’s record also lists the IUPAC condensed representation H-Pyr-Glu-Gln-Leu-Glu-Arg-Ala-Leu-Asn-Ser-Ser-OH and the sequence XEQLERALNSS [1].

Published ARA-290 literature examines erythropoietin-derived, non-erythropoietic peptide design [2]. This provides context for innate repair receptor and peptide pathway research.

Compound Identity and Research Classification

The research classification is peptide-focused. PubChem’s formula and molecular weight data provide a baseline for documentation checks, while academic literature describes ARA-290 in relation to short peptide sequences derived from erythropoietin structure [1][2].

ARA 290 Naming Variants and Hyphenation Consistency

Researchers may see ARA-290, ARA 290, ARA290, cibinetide, PHBSP, or PH-BSP in databases and papers [1].

Hyphenation consistency matters for documentation. The product listing, COA, label, and internal lab record should refer to the same compound identity even when literature sources use alternate spacing.

How Does Published Literature Describe Peptide-Derived Structure?

Published literature describes helix B surface peptide design in relation to erythropoietin’s three-dimensional structure and non-erythropoietic peptide development [2]. That literature reports that short peptide regions can be studied separately from erythropoietin’s classic red blood cell production pathway [2].

These studies provide mechanistic context for erythropoietin-derived peptide and receptor-pathway research, not verification of an RUO product’s performance.

ARA-290 Peptide Identity and Product Listing Context

A product listing should help a technical buyer connect the name ARA-290 to verifiable compound documentation. That includes the common synonym cibinetide, sequence reference, molecular formula, and molecular weight from an official database [1].

The listing should also make the RUO status clear. ARA-290 peptide identity does not create any consumer-use, clinical-use, or therapeutic-use positioning.

Why Do Sequence and Molecular Weight Matter?

Sequence and molecular weight matter because they support identity review. For ARA-290, PubChem lists sequence XEQLERALNSS and computed molecular weight 1257.3 g/mol, giving research teams a reference point for comparing COA and mass data [1].

A purity percentage alone does not fully establish identity. A strong documentation set should connect identity evidence, purity evidence, lot details, and label consistency.

Where Does a Peptide Vial Fit Into Documentation Review?

A peptide vial is a catalog container, not a research claim. The documentation question is whether the vial label, product-page listing, COA, and lot record match.

If the label says ARA-290 and the COA says cibinetide or ARA290, the documentation should make that synonym relationship clear. Otherwise, the buyer has to resolve identity ambiguity before procurement review is complete.

Mechanism of Action Context for ARA-290 Research

The mechanism of action context in ARA-290 literature centers on erythropoietin-derived peptide design and receptor-pathway interpretation. Early work proposed tissue-protective signaling through an erythropoietin receptor and common beta-subunit heteroreceptor [3].

Later literature also cautioned that the direct extracellular interaction between EPOR and beta-common receptor regions remains scientifically debated [5].

Innate Repair Receptor Background in Published Literature

The innate repair receptor concept appears in literature describing EPO-related tissue-protective signaling and inflammatory response regulation [4]. Brines and Cerami describe a tissue-protective system in which EPO-related signaling is discussed alongside proinflammatory cytokine activity and injury-response biology [4].

How Does ARA-290 Relate to Erythropoietin Research?

Erythropoietin is known for its role in red blood cell production, while ARA-290 literature focuses on peptide-derived, non-erythropoietic research models [2][4]. The distinction helps explain why ARA-290 appears in receptor-pathway literature rather than as full-length EPO.

The ARA-290 material discussed here is supplied for laboratory research, not as a substitute for a clinical or therapeutic material.

Why Does EPO Receptor Context Require Careful Interpretation?

EPO receptor context requires care because the literature is not one-dimensional. Some studies support EPO receptor and common beta-subunit heteroreceptor models in tissue-protective research [3], while later work found no specific association between extracellular EPOR and beta-common receptor regions in the tested in vitro systems [5].

Receptor and Cell Signaling Context for ARA-290

Receptor and cell signaling context gives researchers a way to understand the ARA-290 literature without converting it into claims. Studies have examined EPO-derived peptide structures, receptor models, cytokine pathways, microglia, macrophage activation, TRPV1 channel activity, and inflammatory signaling [2][7][8].

The key boundary is interpretation. Pathway relevance is a research category, not proof of product performance.

Cytokine and Inflammatory Pathway Research Context

Published research around EPO-derived peptide systems includes cytokine and inflammatory pathway language [4]. Some ARA-290-related studies also report model-specific inflammatory marker findings in macrophage or model-organism systems [12][13].

What Can Pathway Models Show Without Product Claims?

Pathway models can show how researchers frame a compound in defined experimental systems. For example, one ARA-290 publication examined TRPV1 channel activity in cell and model-organism systems, while another evaluated microglia-related signaling in a preclinical literature context [7][8].

These model-specific findings provide scientific background; they do not establish the performance or intended use of a supplier’s product.

Published Literature Review for ARA-290 Research

ARA-290 literature includes peptide design work, receptor-context studies, preclinical literature, controlled human study settings, and model-specific inflammatory pathway research [2][3][6][9].

In vitro findings, preclinical findings, and human study settings answer different research questions.

How Should Researchers Read Preclinical Findings?

Researchers should read preclinical findings as model-specific evidence. ARA-290 has been examined in preclinical nociception, microglia, and inflammatory signaling contexts [6][7][8].

Those findings do not establish the performance or intended use of a supplier’s material.

Where Do In Vitro and Model Organism Data Fit?

In vitro and model organism data sit near the early and mechanistic side of the evidence ladder. They can help explain pathway questions, receptor hypotheses, cytokine findings, or analytical model design.

They cannot define intended product purpose.

Translational Limits of Published Findings

Some published literature outside the scope of RUO product use has examined this compound class in human study settings. Those studies do not establish an intended use for research-use-only materials [9] [10] [11].

Evidence Interpretation Without Product Claims

Different evidence types answer different questions:

What Study Signals Should Stay in Literature Context?

Published studies describe cytokine markers, microglia response, TRPV1 channel activity, and corneal nerve fiber density under defined conditions [7] [8] [11]. These observations are specific to the studies and do not establish a supplier’s product effects.

This guide covers laboratory research and procurement documentation, not clinical use, wellness advice, or personal experimentation.

How Should Researchers Evaluate Source Quality?

Peer-reviewed literature, official databases, official guidance, and analytical chemistry sources provide a stronger basis for evidence review than vendor pages, forums, influencer summaries, or competitor product claims.

For ARA-290, strong source types include PubChem identity records, PubMed-indexed literature, FDA or ICH analytical guidance, ISO laboratory standards, and NIST reference-material documentation [1][16][20][21].

Distinguishing Research Findings From Product Documentation

Why Is Pathway Relevance Not a Product Claim?

Pathway relevance only means a compound appears in a research model. It does not mean a listed research material produces a claimed outcome.

For example, ARA-290 literature includes receptor-context and cytokine-pathway studies [3][4].

Documentation Fields for Procurement Review

Good documentation cues are concrete. They include compound name, synonym consistency, lot number, COA date, analytical method, purity result, mass evidence, laboratory source, storage record, and RUO labeling.

COA Documentation for ARA-290 Research Materials

A certificate of analysis should provide a batch-specific record that connects the research material to analytical findings. For peptide research, useful COA fields include compound name, lot number, date, method, purity data, identity evidence, and laboratory information.

COA review should be skeptical and practical. A document is more useful when it matches the product listing, label, and lot record.

What Should a Certificate of Analysis Show?

A COA should show what was tested, how it was tested, and which batch the result applies to. FDA analytical guidance emphasizes documentation of identity, quality, purity, and related analytical procedure data in regulated submission contexts, which provides a useful quality-documentation reference point for research procurement review [18].

For ARA-290, the COA should not be generic. It should be tied to the specific lot under review.

How Does Lot-Specific COA Review Support Consistency?

Lot-specific review supports consistency because analytical results are tied to a defined batch. ISO/IEC 17025 describes competence, impartiality, and consistent operation for testing and calibration laboratories, which helps explain why lab source and testing competence matter [20].

NIST also describes reference materials as coming with certificates or information sheets that connect measured values to documentation and traceability concepts [21]. That general metrology principle supports careful COA review.

Why Should Supplier Documentation Match the Product Listing?

Supplier documentation should match the product listing because mismatches create uncertainty. If one document says ARA-290, another says cibinetide, and another uses ARA290, the supplier documentation should clearly show that these names refer to the same compound [1].

The same applies to molecular weight and lot number. If a value or identifier does not match, the procurement team should resolve the discrepancy before relying on the record.

Purity and Identity Testing for Peptide Research

Purity and identity testing answer related but different questions. HPLC is commonly used to assess chromatographic purity, while LC-MS can support peptide identity review through mass-based evidence [19].

For ARA-290, both categories matter. A strong documentation set should show whether the material aligns with expected identity and whether the batch record includes purity data.

How Does HPLC Support Peptide Purity Review?

HPLC supports peptide purity review by separating components in a sample and producing chromatographic data that can be interpreted against a defined method. FDA’s Q2(R2) guidance describes analytical validation principles such as specificity, accuracy, precision, and range, which are relevant when evaluating whether a method is fit for its intended analytical purpose [16].

A purity percentage without method context is incomplete. Research teams should look for method, chromatogram, lot, date, and laboratory source.

How Does LC-MS Support ARA-290 Identity Review?

LC-MS supports peptide identity review by combining chromatographic separation with mass spectrometric detection. A review of synthetic peptide characterization describes LC-MS as an important tool for peptide analysis while also noting challenges and pitfalls in synthetic peptide characterization [19].

For ARA-290, LC-MS documentation should be compared with expected molecular data from the official compound record [1]. This does not replace the COA; it strengthens the identity review.

Mass Spectrometry Signals for Peptide Confirmation

Mass spectrometry signals can support identity confirmation when interpreted against expected mass data and appropriate analytical records. PubChem lists the computed molecular weight for cibinetide as 1257.3 g/mol, giving researchers a database reference for review [1].

Documentation-focused lab-test verification workflow:

1. Verify that the compound name, synonym, label, and lot number match across the product listing, COA, and internal lab record.
2. Review the batch-specific COA and confirm that it applies to the material under procurement review.
3. Check whether the purity method is listed, including the HPLC method or comparable chromatographic record [16].
4. Confirm whether identity testing is supported by LC-MS, mass spectrometry, or another suitable analytical method [19].
5. Compare expected molecular weight and sequence information against an official compound database entry [1].
6. Assess whether the test date, lab source, and documentation format are clear.
7. Record stated storage and handling conditions in a laboratory documentation system.

Lot Traceability and Batch Documentation Workflow

Lot traceability links a product listing to a defined batch record. Without that link, a COA may describe a material, but it does not necessarily describe the material under review.

Batch documentation should include the compound name, lot identifier, COA, test date, method details, label match, and storage record. These are procurement controls, not product claims.

Why Do Lot Numbers Matter for Research Procurement?

Lot numbers matter because analytical records are batch-specific. If a COA and product label do not share the same lot identifier, the COA may not support the research material being evaluated.

Lot-level documentation also helps a lab archive records. When a study record refers to a material, the lot number helps connect procurement, storage, and analytical documents.

Storage and Handling Documentation for Lab Records

Storage and handling documentation should state the condition expected for the material in a laboratory setting. FDA’s Q1A(R2) stability guidance describes how stability testing is used to support storage conditions for regulated substances and products, offering a useful reference for why storage conditions should be documented rather than guessed [22].

Any lab record should capture that condition as part of traceability.

Research Procurement Review Before You Buy ARA-290 for Research

Before teams buy ARA-290 for research, the review should be technical, not promotional. The safest procurement path begins with RUO labeling and ends with a complete record set.

That means buyers evaluate documentation rather than consumer-facing claims.

Documentation Checklist for Technical Purchasing Teams

• Verify that ARA-290 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, synonyms, molecular weight, and sequence against official database information [1].
• Assess whether the product page avoids consumer-use, clinical-use, therapeutic-use, or wellness positioning.
• Document storage and handling conditions in the laboratory record.
• Archive the COA, label image, product listing, and supplier documentation for traceability.

Key distinctions for procurement review: published studies do not verify a supplier’s product; preclinical findings do not establish human outcomes; a purity percentage does not prove complete compound identity; a COA needs to be batch-specific; RUO labeling does not establish suitability for personal use; pathway relevance does not prove product performance; and catalog specifications are not use instructions.

Research-Use-Only Scope

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 the product-page documentation, COA details, analytical testing information, and RUO labeling before evaluating this compound for laboratory research.

FAQs

What does research-use-only mean for ARA-290?

Research-use-only means ARA-290 is intended solely for laboratory research contexts.

What should researchers consider before they buy ARA-290 for research?

Researchers should consider documentation before they buy ARA-290 for research. Key review points include RUO labeling, batch-specific documentation, COA availability, peptide identity records, HPLC purity data, LC-MS identity support, lot traceability, and storage documentation.

What is ARA-290 in peptide research?

ARA-290 is discussed in peptide research as an erythropoietin-derived synthetic peptide, with cibinetide listed as a related compound name in the article’s cited database context [1]. Researchers should compare naming, molecular weight, and peptide identity across supplier records.

How does ARA-290 differ from erythropoietin in research context?

ARA-290 differs from erythropoietin in research context because literature frames it as a short, non-erythropoietic peptide derived from erythropoietin-related structural research [2]. That distinction helps researchers interpret EPO, IRR, and receptor-pathway references carefully.

What role do pathway terms play in ARA-290 literature?

Pathway terms help researchers organize ARA-290 literature without creating product claims. Concepts such as inflammatory cytokine signaling, immune system and nociception models, signal transduction, and transient receptor potential channel research may appear in academic context.

Why does storage documentation matter for ARA-290 research materials?

Storage documentation matters for ARA-290 research materials because laboratory records should preserve handling conditions, lot identity, and supplier documentation consistency. For a lyophilized peptide, freeze drying may be relevant to how the material is documented in a research setting.

---

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.

Michael Brines

Author profile: ORCID

Michael Brines’s publications examine ARA-290, erythropoietin-derived peptides, and receptor pathways. The selected work provides background on peptide-derived structure, EPO receptor models, and innate repair receptor research.

Selected publications:

• Nonerythropoietic, tissue-protective peptides derived from the tertiary structure of erythropoietin — Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2008. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0805594105
• Erythropoietin receptor and common beta-subunit pathway research — Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2004. PMID: 15456912

Anthony Cerami

Author profile: Rockefeller University Research Profile

Anthony Cerami’s publications examine erythropoietin-derived peptides and innate repair receptors. His coauthored work with Michael Brines provides background on EPO-related signaling models and engineered innate repair activators.

Selected publications:

• The receptor that tames the innate immune response — Molecular Medicine, 2012. PMID: 22183892
• Erythropoietin and engineered innate repair activators — Methods in Molecular Biology, 2013. PMID: 23456859

REFERENCES

1. National Center for Biotechnology Information. Cibinetide compound record. PubChem. Updated record accessed 2026.
2. Brines M, Patel NSA, Villa P, et al. Erythropoietin-derived short peptide research record. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2008. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0805594105. PMID: 18676614.
3. Brines M, Grasso G, Fiordaliso F, et al. EPO receptor and common beta-subunit receptor-context study. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2004. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0406491101. PMID: 15456912.
4. Brines M, Cerami A. Innate immune response receptor review. Molecular Medicine. 2012. DOI: 10.2119/molmed.2011.00414. PMID: 22183892.
5. Cheung Tung Shing KS, Broughton SE, Nero TL, et al. EPOR and beta-common receptor interaction analysis. Scientific Reports. 2018. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-29865-x. PMID: 30127368.
6. Swartjes M, Morariu A, Niesters M, et al. ARA-290 receptor-pathway model organism study. Anesthesiology. 2011. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e31822fcefd. PMID: 21873879.
7. Swartjes M, van Velzen M, Niesters M, et al. ARA-290 microglia-response research record. Molecular Pain. 2014. DOI: 10.1186/1744-8069-10-13. PMID: 24529189.
8. Zhang W, Yu G, Zhang M, et al. ARA-290 TRPV1 pathway research record. Peptides. 2016. DOI: 10.1016/j.peptides.2016.01.003.
9. Brines M, Dunne AN, van Velzen M, et al. ARA-290 controlled human study setting with metabolic pathway endpoints. Molecular Medicine. 2015. DOI: 10.2119/molmed.2014.00215. PMID: 25387363.
10. Heij L, Niesters M, Swartjes M, et al. ARA-290 controlled human study setting in small-fiber literature. Molecular Medicine. 2012. DOI: 10.2119/molmed.2012.00332. PMID: 23168581.
11. Culver DA, Dahan A, Bajorunas D, et al. Cibinetide corneal nerve fiber research record. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science. 2017. DOI: 10.1167/iovs.16-21291. PMID: 28475703.
12. Watanabe M, Lundgren T, Saito Y, et al. ARA-290 macrophage and pancreatic islet model research record. Transplantation. 2016. DOI: 10.1097/TP.0000000000001026.
13. Huang B, Jiang J, Luo B, et al. Erythropoietin-derived peptide and macrophage-pathway model research record. Journal of Cellular and Molecular Medicine. 2018. DOI: 10.1111/jcmm.13608. PMID: 29570934.
14. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. RUO and IUO labeling guidance for IVD products. FDA Guidance. 2013.
15. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. IVD labeling requirements overview. FDA.
16. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Q2(R2) validation of analytical procedures. FDA Guidance. 2024.
17. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Q14 analytical procedure development. FDA Guidance. 2024.
18. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Analytical procedures and methods validation guidance. FDA Guidance. 2015.
19. Lian Z, Wang N, Tian Y, Huang L. Synthetic peptide characterization by LC-MS review. Journal of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry. 2021. DOI: 10.1021/jasms.0c00479. PMID: 34110145.
20. International Organization for Standardization. ISO/IEC 17025:2017 testing and calibration laboratory standard. ISO. 2017; confirmed current 2023.
21. National Institute of Standards and Technology. Reference materials and certificate documentation overview. NIST.
22. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Q1A(R2) stability testing guidance. FDA Guidance. 2003.

---

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.