$84.99
Research Studies:
FREE Shipping on
orders over $200
ALL ARTICLES AND PRODUCT INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THIS WEBSITE ARE FOR INFORMATIONAL AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY. The products offered on this website are intended solely for research and laboratory use. These products are not intended for human or animal consumption. They are not medicines or drugs and have not been evaluated or approved by the FDA to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease or medical condition. Any form of bodily introduction is strictly prohibited by law.
Ara-290 16mg is a research-use-only laboratory material supplied for controlled research workflows, compound characterization, and analytical documentation review. It is manufactured under rigorous quality standards to support consistency, traceability, and batch-specific verification for qualified laboratory settings.
Ara-290 16mg is intended strictly for laboratory research use only. This product is not intended for human or animal consumption, therapeutic use, diagnostic use, clinical use, veterinary use, or as a food, drug, cosmetic, dietary supplement, or household product.
| CAS No. | 1208243-50-8 |
|---|---|
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Sequence | Glp-Glu-Gln-Leu-Glu-Arg-Ala-Leu-Asn-Ser-Ser |
| Molecular Formula | C51H84N16O21 |
| Molecular Weight | 1257.31 g/mol |
| Applications | Neuroprotection research, anti-inflammatory studies, microvascular repair investigations |
| Synthesis | Solid-phase synthesis |
| Solubility | Soluble in water or 1% acetic acid |
| Stability & Storage | Stable for up to 24 months at -20°C. After reconstitution, may be stored at 4°C for up to 4 weeks or at -20°C for up to 6 months. |
| Appearance | White lyophilized powder |
| Shipping Conditions | Shipped at ambient temperature; once received, store at -20°C |
| Regulatory/Compliance | Manufactured in a facility that adheres to cGMP guidelines |
| Safety Information | Refer to provided MSDS |
Consider these supplementary peptides for a comprehensive research approach.
This product-page research guide is for laboratory buyers comparing where to buy ARA-290 for research while keeping the evaluation focused on research-use-only documentation. ARA-290 is commonly associated with the compound name cibinetide, and PubChem lists cibinetide as an 11-mer peptide with the synonym ARA290 [1]. The goal is to help research teams evaluate peptide identity, COA records, analytical testing, lot traceability, literature context, and RUO boundaries without turning published research into product claims.
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 should remain separate from product positioning.
The phrase “buy ARA-290 peptide for research” has commercial intent, but the safe product-page answer is documentation-first. Research buyers are not evaluating personal outcomes; they are checking whether the compound name, lot number, COA, label, purity method, and identity records align.
A safer search pathway starts with compound identity. PubChem lists cibinetide as ARA290 and provides formula, sequence, and molecular weight data that can help research teams compare product-page documentation against an official database entry [1].
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 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].
For ARA-290, RUO framing keeps the page focused on research material documentation. It also prevents scientific literature from being misread as an intended-use statement for a product listing.
Research use framing matters because ARA-290 literature includes mechanistic, preclinical, and human study settings that can be easy to overstate. A product page should describe what literature examines while avoiding claims about what a research material does.
The practical rule is simple. Use literature to define research context, then use product documentation to evaluate the listed research material.
A commercial RUO page can answer buyer questions without becoming a consumer buying guide. The page can explain COA review, peptide identity, purity testing, mass confirmation, and lot traceability.
That is different from describing personal outcomes. Pure Lab Peptides product-page language should stay in the lane of laboratory research, supplier evaluation, and documentation review.
RUO copy keeps the attention on records. For ARA-290, that means the article can discuss PubChem identity, erythropoietin-derived peptide literature, receptor-context studies, and analytical methods while still avoiding product claims [1][2].
The same principle applies to packaging language. A peptide vial may be mentioned as a catalog container, but the safer content focus is label consistency, lot matching, and batch documentation.
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].
In published literature, ARA-290 appears in the same research lane as erythropoietin-derived, non-erythropoietic peptide design [2]. That makes it a better fit for innate repair receptor and peptide pathway research than for consumer-facing content.
Compound identity starts with the canonical entity. For this page, the target compound is ARA-290, and ARA 290 is a naming variant that should be normalized in product-page copy.
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].
Researchers may see ARA-290, ARA 290, ARA290, cibinetide, PHBSP, or PH-BSP in databases and papers [1]. A product page should acknowledge these variants without creating separate SEO targets for each form.
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.
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].
This is a mechanism-of-action context, not a product claim. The safer interpretation is that ARA-290 belongs in erythropoietin-derived peptide research and receptor-pathway literature.
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.
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.
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.
Product-page positioning should answer research buyer questions quickly. What is the compound? What does the COA show? Which analytical method supports identity? Is the lot number traceable? Is the page clearly RUO?
For ARA-290, a useful product-page article should combine commercial research intent with scientific caution. It can help buyers understand what to review before selecting a research-use-only material.
Research buyers should expect the compound name, RUO designation, storage documentation, COA availability, lot-specific records, and analytical testing summary. The product listing should also avoid wording that turns literature into product-performance claims.
A strong listing does not need exaggerated language. It needs coherent documentation that lets technical procurement teams compare the label, COA, and product record.
ARA-290 should remain the canonical entity. Product amounts, vial formats, or catalog variations should not become separate SEO targets in a documentation guide.
Variant-specific targeting can create unsafe drift when copy starts implying practical product guidance. A canonical ARA-290 page should instead cover identity, purity, COA, lot traceability, and RUO positioning.
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]. A careful product page should reflect that receptor language is a research model, not a settled product claim.
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].
For RUO content, the useful takeaway is not an outcome claim. It is a literature framework for organizing receptor, cytokine, and inflammatory pathway terms.
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.
This framing should stay technical. ARA-290 is a research peptide in this product-page context, not a substitute for any clinical or therapeutic material.
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].
That difference is important for copy quality. ARA-290 content should say “research literature describes” or “models have examined,” not “the product activates” a pathway.
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.
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].
A safe product-page article can mention cytokine or inflammatory pathway research when it is clearly tied to published literature. It should not state or imply that a research material reduces inflammation in any living subject.
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].
Those models do not establish product claims. They only support a literature map that research buyers may use when reviewing the compound’s scientific background.
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]. The body of evidence is useful for topical context, but it should not become product-page claim language.
A documentation-focused page should separate evidence levels. In vitro findings, preclinical findings, and human study settings answer different research questions.
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].
That does not mean the findings transfer to product positioning. The safer wording is: published preclinical literature has evaluated ARA-290 in selected pathway models.
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. In RUO copy, model data should be used to explain research context and literature limits.
Translational limits are central to responsible ARA-290 content. Some published literature outside the scope of RUO product use has examined this compound class in human study settings. That literature should not be interpreted as a use claim for research-use-only materials [9][10][11].
A safer label for this evidence category is “academic context.” The product page should then return to COA review, analytical testing, and RUO labeling.
Evidence interpretation should be structured, not promotional. The table below helps separate what literature examines from what a research-use-only product page can say.
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | Cibinetide synonyms, formula, molecular weight, and sequence [1] | Official database | Supports identity review, not product claims |
| Peptide-derived structure | Short peptide regions derived from erythropoietin structure [2] | Peer-reviewed mechanistic literature | Supports classification as erythropoietin-derived peptide research |
| Receptor context | EPO receptor and common beta-subunit heteroreceptor models [3] | Mechanistic literature | Useful pathway context with interpretation limits |
| Receptor uncertainty | Direct EPOR and beta-common receptor interaction remains debated in tested systems [5] | In vitro biophysical study | Supports cautious language rather than certainty claims |
| Nociception and small nerve fiber metrics | Some publications address neuropathic pain, small nerve fiber, and corneal nerve fiber density endpoints [10][11] | Controlled literature | Academic evidence category only, not product positioning |
| Analytical testing | HPLC, LC-MS, and validation principles can support quality documentation [16][19] | Analytical guidance and review literature | Supports documentation review, not performance claims |
Study signals such as cytokine markers, microglia response, TRPV1 channel activity, and corneal nerve fiber density should stay in literature context [7][8][11]. They may explain why ARA-290 appears in a research lane, but they should not become product-effect phrasing.
This distinction protects both scientific accuracy and RUO positioning. The product page is not a clinical summary, a wellness page, or a guide for personal experimentation.
A source quality filter helps editors and procurement teams rank evidence. Peer-reviewed literature, official databases, official guidance, and analytical chemistry sources should outrank vendor pages, forums, influencer summaries, and 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].
Claim boundaries keep the article focused on research materials. A product page can discuss what literature examines, but it should not suggest that the product is intended for human, animal, clinical, diagnostic, therapeutic, wellness, cosmetic, or personal-use purposes.
This matters for ARA-290 because the literature includes boundary-sensitive search terms. Terms like clinical studies or neuropathic pain may appear in academic sources, but RUO copy should keep them separate from product positioning.
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]. A safe product page should describe those as research areas, then move back to documentation review.
Product-page copy should separate three things: published literature, product documentation, and intended product positioning. Literature explains what researchers have investigated; COA and analytical records describe the material; RUO labeling defines the page boundary.
This separation prevents phrases from becoming product claims. It also gives technical buyers a clearer procurement framework.
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.
These cues are safer than broad marketing language. They help Pure Lab Peptides support commercial research intent without implying consumer outcomes.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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 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:
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.
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 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].
For a lyophilized peptide, the product page and COA records should be consistent about the storage condition listed for the research material. Any lab record should capture that condition as part of traceability.
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.
Pure Lab Peptides content should keep the commercial query in a research-safe lane. That means buyers evaluate documentation rather than consumer-facing claims.
Common misunderstandings to avoid: published literature does not equal product positioning; preclinical findings should not become human claims; a purity percentage does not prove complete compound identity; a COA should be batch-specific; RUO labeling does not support personal-use intent; pathway relevance does not equal a product claim; and catalog specifications are not practical guidance.
The final checks are language checks and documentation checks. The page should include RUO context, cite scientific claims, avoid personal-use framing, keep literature claims separate from product documentation, and focus the CTA on COA review.
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.
Research-use-only means ARA-290 is intended solely for laboratory research contexts. RUO product-page content should focus on compound characterization, peptide identity, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and supplier documentation. It should not frame ARA-290 as a material for human, animal, diagnostic, clinical, therapeutic, wellness, cosmetic, or personal-use purposes.
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. Commercial research intent should stay tied to laboratory records rather than product claims.
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]. For product-page purposes, that identity context should support research documentation review, not practical product positioning. Researchers should compare naming, molecular weight, and peptide identity across supplier records.
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. Product pages should keep this discussion focused on compound classification, published literature, and RUO documentation.
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. In an RUO product page, these terms should support literature interpretation, not consumer-facing or clinical-use positioning.
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. The product page should keep this information record-focused and separate from practical preparation guidance.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: ORCID
Michael Brines is a published research author whose work is closely connected to ARA-290, erythropoietin-derived peptide literature, and receptor pathway research. His publications helped inform the article’s discussion of compound identity, peptide-derived structure, EPO receptor context, innate repair receptor literature, and the need to separate pathway models from product claims. Brines’ work is especially relevant to documentation-focused research pages because it provides a peer-reviewed scientific basis for understanding why ARA-290 appears in peptide pathway research while still requiring careful RUO framing.
Selected publications:
Author profile: Rockefeller University Research Profile
Anthony Cerami is a scientific author whose publications are relevant to the erythropoietin-derived peptide and innate repair receptor research lane discussed in this article. His coauthored work with Michael Brines provides background for interpreting EPO-related signaling models, engineered innate repair activators, and pathway-focused literature without converting those topics into product positioning. The selected publications are useful for understanding the broader research context behind ARA-290 and for maintaining a documentation-centered, research-use-only approach to peptide product-page content.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how this page handles published literature and search language around ARA-290. In innate repair receptor and peptide pathway research content, terms such as ARA-290 nasal spray, ARA-290 pre-mixed peptide, ARA-290 peptide vial, clinical trial, type 2 diabetes, diabetic neuropathy, neuropathic symptoms, and small fiber neuropathy can drift into consumer-facing, administration-focused, clinical-use, therapeutic, wellness, or product-claim language when framed incorrectly.
Here, those phrases are handled only as research-language examples, not product positioning, outcomes, instructions, or recommendations. Related phrases such as nerve regeneration, nerve repair, tissue repair, peptide therapy, peptide treatment, reduce inflammation, improve metabolic control, and efficacy should remain separate from ARA-290 product claims unless discussed as model-specific published literature boundaries. The focus of this page remains ARA-290 identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, RUO labeling, product documentation, and careful interpretation of research context.
Our team is ready to assist you with any inquiries regarding our catalogue of peptides and their applications.
Discount Applied Successfully!
Your savings have been added to the cart.
There are no reviews yet.