$39.99
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.
CJC-1295 No DAC 5mg 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.
CJC-1295 No DAC 5mg 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. | 863288-34-0 |
|---|---|
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Sequence | Tyr-D-Ala-Asp-Ala-Ile-Phe-Thr-Gln-Ser-Tyr-Arg-Lys-Val-Leu-Ala-Gln-Leu-Ser-Ala-Arg-Lys-Leu-Leu-Gln-Asp-Ile-Met-Ser |
| Molecular Formula | C152H252N44O42 |
| Molecular Weight | 3367.96 g/mol |
| Applications | Growth hormone secretion research, metabolic function studies, muscle growth and fat loss exploration. |
| Synthesis | Solid-phase synthesis |
| Format | Lyophilized powder |
| 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 |
Consider these supplementary peptides for a comprehensive research approach.
Researchers who search for buy CJC-1295 (No DAC) for research are usually evaluating a research peptide listing, not a consumer guide. This page frames CJC-1295 (No DAC) as a research-use-only GHRH analog documented through compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, and lot traceability; PubChem lists CJC1295 Without DAC as a defined peptide compound with formula C152H252N44O42 and molecular weight 3367.9 g/mol [1]. The goal is to help laboratory buyers review literature context and product documentation without converting published findings into product claims.
Researchers evaluating where to buy CJC-1295 (No DAC) for research should begin with RUO labeling, batch-specific COA, peptide identity data, purity method, and lot traceability. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. Scientific literature should be reviewed as model-specific context, not product positioning [1].
A strong research product page should identify the compound, distinguish CJC-1295 no DAC from DAC-linked forms, and make the COA easy to review. The documentation should also connect the product listing, label, lot number, and analytical records into one consistent file.
The phrase buy CJC-1295 (No DAC) for research carries commercial intent, but the safe page purpose is technical procurement. The buyer is evaluating whether the research material is labeled, documented, and characterized clearly enough for laboratory research use.
RUO labeling sets the boundary before any scientific discussion begins. It tells the procurement team that the page is about laboratory material review, not personal outcomes, product effects, or product performance.
CJC-1295 (No DAC) belongs in a GH Secretagogue and GHRH Research lane because the literature around this compound class focuses on GHRH receptor context, endocrine pathway models, and peptide identity documentation. That lane supports research discussion while keeping the product page separate from consumer-facing or clinical-use language.
Research-use-only positioning should say what the material is for: controlled laboratory research, documentation review, and qualified procurement. It should not describe how a person would evaluate, select, or apply a compound outside a laboratory setting.
Laboratory research use keeps the emphasis on the compound, the literature, and the documentation. Product-claim language begins when pathway terms are turned into promises about product effects, so this page keeps scientific findings tied to sources and model context.
CJC-1295 (No DAC) is commonly treated as a modified GRF 1-29-style peptide analog in research documentation, while DAC-linked CJC-1295 literature describes an added albumin-binding feature [1], [2]. PubChem distinguishes CJC1295 Without DAC from CJC-1295 entries that include the DAC-linked structure [1], [9].
DAC stands for drug affinity complex in the CJC-1295 literature, where albumin bioconjugation was used to extend the persistence of the DAC-linked analog [2]. A CJC-1295 (No DAC) product page should not borrow DAC-linked half-life or pathway findings without making that distinction clear.
Half-life language should be handled as literature context, not product positioning. The DAC-linked CJC-1295 literature reports extended pharmacokinetic behavior for the albumin-binding version, while the no-DAC listing should be reviewed through its own identity documentation and COA [2], [7].
CJC 1295 without DAC is documented in PubChem as CJC1295 Without DAC with formula C152H252N44O42 and molecular weight 3367.9 g/mol [1]. In product-page copy, modified GRF 1-29 language should support compound identity, not imply a separate product variant or separate SEO target.
Peptide sequence review helps confirm that the listing, COA, and identity data are discussing the same research material. Sequence, molecular formula, molecular weight, and lot number should align across the product page and batch-specific files.
Molecular weight and formula review help researchers compare the product listing against official or database-level identity information. For CJC-1295 (No DAC), the molecular formula and computed molecular weight listed by PubChem give a neutral reference point for documentation review [1].
The GHRH receptor is encoded by the GHRHR gene, and NCBI describes it as a receptor for growth hormone-releasing hormone where ligand binding leads to synthesis and release of growth hormone [3]. UniProt similarly describes the GHRH receptor as a G-protein-coupled receptor associated with adenylyl cyclase activation and somatotroph cell context [4].
Receptor selectivity is a research interpretation issue. CJC-1295 (No DAC) belongs with GHRH receptor literature, while ipamorelin belongs with growth hormone secretagogue receptor and ghrelin receptor literature [3], [11].
GHRH receptor signaling is commonly described through cAMP-dependent pathways in somatotroph research literature [5]. Related work has also examined MAP kinase signaling in somatotroph models, showing that pathway context can be broader than one simple signal diagram [6].
Academic literature on CJC-1295 has examined GH and IGF-1 as endocrine endpoints in controlled study settings, but those endpoints should not become product-page claims [7]. Ionescu and Frohman reported preserved GH pulsatility in a CJC-1295 study context, which is useful for literature interpretation but not a product-use statement [8].
GH pulse models can clarify how researchers discuss timing, amplitude, and endocrine signaling in published literature. They should be treated as evidence-context terms, not as promises attached to a research-use-only peptide [8].
Pulsatile secretion is a scientific description of observed endocrine signaling patterns. For CJC-1295 product-page writing, the safe interpretation is that pulsatile GH literature provides research context and should remain separate from product positioning [8].
ACTH, cortisol, and prolactin appear as marker terms in same-lane endocrine literature. Raun, Hansen, Johansen, and coauthors described ipamorelin as a selective pentapeptide growth hormone secretagogue and compared marker responses across related secretagogue compounds [10].
Marker language should stay descriptive. A product page can state that ACTH, cortisol, and prolactin are discussed in literature as endocrine markers, but it should not claim that a research peptide changes marker levels in a laboratory buyer’s intended work.
Pathway relevance means that a compound appears in a scientific lane, receptor model, or evidence category. It does not mean the research material is being positioned for any outcome beyond laboratory evaluation.
Ipamorelin is relevant as a same-lane comparator because it is discussed in growth hormone secretagogue research and ghrelin receptor-related literature. NCBI identifies GHSR as the receptor for the ghrelin ligand and links the 1a transcript to a neuroendocrine pathway for GH release [11].
Ipamorelin is described in the literature as a pentapeptide growth hormone secretagogue [10]. It differs from CJC-1295 (No DAC) because ipamorelin is associated with GHSR/ghrelin receptor literature, while CJC-1295 (No DAC) is framed through GHRH analog and GHRH receptor documentation [3], [11], [12].
CJC-1295 and ipamorelin blend mentions should be handled as same-lane research references only. A product page should avoid turning paired receptor concepts into synergistic product-performance language.
The safest evidence framework separates database identity, analytical documentation, receptor literature, model-specific endocrine findings, and RUO product-page boundaries. That prevents one evidence type from doing work it cannot support.
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | Formula, molecular weight, and compound record for CJC1295 Without DAC [1] | Official database | Supports documentation review, not product claims |
| DAC distinction | Albumin-binding DAC-linked CJC-1295 characterization [2] | Mechanistic peptide literature | Helps separate DAC and no-DAC documentation |
| GHRH receptor context | GHRHR receptor identity and G-protein signaling context [3], [4] | Official database and protein record | Supports pathway classification |
| GH pulse literature | Published CJC-1295 endocrine pulse observations [8] | Academic literature | Model-specific context only |
| Analytical testing | Method validation, chromatography, and LC-MS documentation concepts [13], [15], [17] | Standards and analytical literature | Supports COA and identity review |
Published literature can support statements about receptor context, model type, analytical method, and study endpoints when cited accurately. It cannot, by itself, support product positioning for research-use-only materials.
Model type changes what a finding can mean. In vitro research, preclinical literature, database identity records, and analytical chemistry references answer different questions and should not be collapsed into a single claim.
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 [7], [8].
Search intent can drift when commercial phrases are paired with product effects or product performance language. RUO product-page content should bring the reader back to compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and published literature boundaries.
Research pages should emphasize documentation, not outcomes. Common misunderstandings to avoid include treating published literature as product positioning, treating purity percentage as complete identity confirmation, treating a COA as useful without lot matching, treating pathway relevance as product performance, or treating a 10mg catalog reference as a separate research-plan recommendation.
A COA should connect the research material to batch-specific test information. FDA cGMP Q&A materials discuss supplier certificates of analysis in the context of verification and supplier reliability, which is a useful documentation concept for research procurement review [19].
A certificate of analysis should identify the compound name, batch or lot number, testing date, reported purity, identity method, and lab source when available. For CJC-1295 (No DAC), those elements should match the product page and label.
Researchers should check whether the COA, product listing, label, and any analytical records describe the same peptide. Inconsistent compound naming, missing lot details, or unmatched identity data should trigger further documentation review.
Purity and identity are related but not identical. ICH Q2(R2) frames analytical procedure validation around showing that a procedure is fit for its intended purpose, while FDA analytical-method guidance discusses documentation supporting identity, quality, purity, and potency in regulated method submissions [13], [14].
Peptide purity is commonly reported as a percentage tied to an analytical method. The value is more useful when the method, chromatogram, test date, and batch identifier are available for review [13], [15].
Identity confirmation asks whether the material matches the expected compound. LC-MS can support identity review by using mass information, while HPLC can support separation and purity review through chromatographic behavior [16], [17].
HPLC and LC-MS are complementary in documentation review. HPLC is widely used in peptide separation and purification contexts, while LC-MS-based workflows can support peptide identification through accurate mass and elution information [16], [17].
Documentation-focused verification sequence:
HPLC supports purity review by separating components and producing chromatographic data that can be interpreted through method-specific criteria. USP chromatography materials discuss general chromatographic definitions and system suitability concepts relevant to method review [15].
LC-MS supports peptide identity verification by pairing liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry data. LC-MS-based proteomics literature describes peptide identification through accurate mass measurements and LC elution times, and GHRH analog detection literature has applied LC-MS approaches to synthetic GHRH analogs [17], [18].
Lot traceability helps connect a research material to the history of its documentation. Regulated labeling frameworks use lot or control numbers to connect labeled materials to manufacturing and control history, which is a useful quality concept for laboratory procurement review [20].
Lot numbers matter because COA data should be batch-specific. Without a lot match, a purity value or identity report may not clearly describe the specific research material under review.
Batch documentation should connect the product listing, label, COA, analytical method, test date, and storage record. The stronger the connection, the easier it is for a laboratory team to document procurement decisions.
Storage and labeling documentation should be evaluated as part of the product file. ICH Q1A(R2) describes stability testing as evidence for how quality varies over time under environmental factors such as temperature, humidity, and light [21].
When a CJC-1295 (No DAC) listing describes lyophilized powder, the label should still connect to compound identity, lot number, and COA documentation. The physical form does not replace analytical identity or batch-specific records.
Storage documentation should state the conditions the supplier uses for the research material and how those conditions relate to the product file. Laboratory teams should record supplier-provided storage details alongside COA and lot documentation.
Before a lab team decides where to buy CJC-1295 (No DAC) for research, the review should focus on documentation quality. The best product-page signal is not hype; it is a consistent file that supports RUO labeling, compound identity, purity review, and lot traceability.
Research buyers should compare the compound name, No DAC distinction, formula or molecular weight reference, COA, purity method, identity method, lot number, test date, and storage notes. They should also assess whether the page avoids clinical-use language, therapeutic-use language, and consumer outcome framing.
Review the product-page documentation, COA details, analytical testing references, lot traceability, and RUO labeling before evaluating this compound for laboratory research. For research teams comparing peptide suppliers, prioritize transparent documentation over unsupported product claims.
Research use only means CJC-1295 (No DAC) is intended solely for controlled laboratory research contexts. For product-page review, that means the focus should stay on compound identity, RUO labeling, COA documentation, lot traceability, and research documentation rather than personal or clinical interpretation.
Researchers should consider documentation quality before they buy CJC-1295 (No DAC) for research. A strong review looks at the product label, COA, lot number, peptide identity records, supplier documentation, and whether every batch can be connected to consistent analytical records.
“No DAC” means the product-page identity should be distinguished from DAC-linked CJC-1295 references. In RUO documentation, that distinction helps researchers avoid mixing literature categories and keeps the product file focused on the specific compound name, molecular record, COA, and batch-specific documentation.
Pituitary gland context appears because CJC-1295 (No DAC) is discussed in a GHRH analog research lane. In literature review, researchers may evaluate anterior pituitary, binding site, cell signaling, and signal transduction language as pathway context, not as product positioning or outcome language.
Researchers should evaluate third-party documentation by checking whether it supports the same compound identity shown on the product page. Research-grade documentation is stronger when COA details, purity reporting, identity testing, test date, and lot information align across the supplier documentation file.
Language boundaries matter because CJC-1295 (No DAC) research pages should stay focused on documentation, published literature boundaries, and laboratory research purposes. Terms from endocrine literature, including growth hormone secretagogues or insulin-like growth factor-1, should be framed as research context rather than product claims.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: ScienceDirect Author Profile
Lawrence A. Frohman is recognized for peer-reviewed work relevant to CJC-1295, GHRH analog research, GH pulse interpretation, and endocrine pathway literature. His publications helped anchor the article’s discussion of how CJC-1295 fits within a broader research lane while keeping source-level observations separate from product-page claims. The selected papers are useful for interpreting model-specific endocrine markers, receptor pathway research, and published literature context. They also support a cautious approach to literature interpretation, where study design, model type, and analytical terminology remain distinct from supplier documentation or procurement language.
Selected publications:
Author profile: King’s College London Profile
Siham Memdouh is recognized for published work relevant to analytical testing, LC-MS/MS methodology, and characterization of GHRH synthetic analogs, including CJC-1295 and CJC-1295 with DAC. In the article context, this work helps frame how laboratory research pages can discuss peptide identity, reference materials, and method-based detection without turning analytical findings into product claims. Her selected outputs support the documentation-focused side of the research lane, especially where compound characterization, LC-MS/MS, and research peptides intersect. They also provide a useful counterweight to purely commercial phrasing by showing how method details and research records can shape careful interpretation.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how this page handles published literature and search language around CJC-1295 (No DAC). In GH Secretagogue and GHRH Research content, terms such as continuous stimulation, growth hormone production, gh pulse amplitude, peptide therapy, clinical outcomes, wellness positioning, consumer outcomes, and administration-focused language can drift into consumer-facing or product-claim territory when framed incorrectly.
Here, those phrases are handled only as research-language examples, not as product positioning, practical guidance, or intended outcomes. Additional terms such as absorption, bioavailability, body composition, and appetite require the same careful separation from model-specific research context. The focus remains on CJC-1295 (No DAC) identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, research-use-only labeling, product documentation, and published literature boundaries.
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.