Skip to content 
Researchers evaluating CJC-1295 (No DAC) should review compound identity, the COA, 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]. Published studies provide research context, not evidence of non-research uses for the supplied material.
- CJC-1295 (No DAC) is discussed here as a research peptide connected to modified GRF 1-29 and GHRH analog literature, with compound identity verified through documentation rather than marketing language [1].
- No DAC is a documentation distinction: DAC-linked CJC-1295 literature describes an albumin-binding drug affinity complex, while CJC-1295 (No DAC) should be evaluated separately [2].
- Academic sources discuss GHRH receptor signaling, somatotroph cell models, GH pulse research, and related secretagogue compounds [3].
- Published literature can describe model-specific pathway findings, but it should not be treated as product-use guidance or a product claim [4].
- COA, purity, identity, and lot records matter because analytical methods should be fit for their intended purpose and linked to batch-specific documentation [13].
- CJC-1295 (No DAC) is supplied for laboratory research, not consumer, wellness, or personal use.
Fast Answer: What Should Researchers Check Before They Buy CJC-1295 (No DAC) for Research?
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].
What Documentation Should Researchers Review First?
Review the product listing, label, lot number, COA, and analytical records together as one consistent file.
CJC-1295 (No DAC) Research Procurement
The buyer is evaluating whether the research material is labeled, documented, and characterized clearly enough for laboratory research use.
Why Does RUO Labeling Matter Before Procurement?
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) Research-Use-Only Context
CJC-1295 (No DAC) appears in GHRH analog research. Review compound identity and lot documentation separately from published endocrine pathway models.
What Does Research Use Only Mean?
The material is intended for controlled laboratory research. It is not intended for personal use or other non-laboratory applications.
Laboratory Research and Evidence Limits
Evaluate published findings within their sources and experimental models. Pathway findings do not establish the effects or performance of the supplied research material.
What Is CJC-1295 (No DAC) in Research Literature?
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].
Why Does No DAC Matter as a Documentation Distinction?
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].
DAC-Linked Pharmacokinetic Literature
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].
Compound Identity: CJC 1295, Modified GRF 1-29, and 29 Amino Acids
CJC 1295 without DAC is documented in PubChem as CJC1295 Without DAC with formula C152H252N44O42 and molecular weight 3367.9 g/mol [1].
Peptide Sequence Details for Documentation Review
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.
Why Do Molecular Weight and Formula Review Matter?
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].
GHRH Receptor Signaling Context for CJC-1295 Research
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 and Somatotroph Cell Model Context
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].
Where Do cAMP and Second Messenger Signals Fit?
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].
Endocrine Pathway Literature and Growth Hormone Pulse Context
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].
What Can GH Pulse Models Clarify for Research?
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 in Published Literature
Pulsatile secretion is a scientific description of observed endocrine signaling patterns.
ACTH, Cortisol, and Prolactin Marker Context in Literature
ACTH, cortisol, and prolactin appear as markers in related 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].
Why Is Pathway Relevance Not a Product Claim?
Pathway relevance means a compound appears in research on a receptor or signaling process. It does not establish outcomes for a supplied research material beyond the studied context.
Ipamorelin as a Related Research Comparator
Ipamorelin is discussed in growth hormone secretagogue and ghrelin receptor research. NCBI identifies GHSR as the receptor for the ghrelin ligand and links the 1a transcript to a neuroendocrine pathway for GH release [11].
How Does Ipamorelin Differ From CJC-1295 (No DAC)?
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].
Evidence Interpretation Framework for Published Research
Assess database identity, analytical documentation, receptor literature, and model-specific endocrine findings separately. Each evidence type answers a different question.
| 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 |
What Can Published Literature Support or Leave Open?
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.
Why Does Model Type Change Evidence Interpretation?
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.
Research Literature and Product-Claim Separation
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].
COA Documentation for CJC-1295 (No DAC)
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].
What Should a Certificate of Analysis Identify?
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.
How Should Researchers Review COA Consistency?
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, Identity, and Analytical Testing 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].
How Is Peptide Purity Reported in Research Documentation?
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].
What Does Identity Confirmation Add Beyond Purity?
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 Workflow for Research Peptide Verification
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:
- Verify that the compound name, lot number, and label match across available documents.
- Review the batch-specific COA.
- Check whether the purity testing method is listed.
- Confirm whether identity testing is supported by LC-MS or another suitable analytical method.
- Inspect chromatogram or mass data when available.
- Check the COA date and laboratory source.
- Record storage and handling requirements in a laboratory file.
How Does HPLC Support Purity Review?
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].
How Does LC-MS Support Peptide Identity Verification?
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 and Batch-Specific Supplier Documentation
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].
Why Do Lot Numbers Matter for Research Materials?
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.
What Should Batch Documentation Connect?
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, Labeling, and Lyophilized Powder Documentation
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].
Lyophilized Powder Labeling and Traceability
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.
What Should Storage Documentation State for Lab Teams?
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.
Research Procurement Review Before You Buy CJC-1295 (No DAC) for Research
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.
What Should Research Buyers Compare Across Supplier Documentation?
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.
Final Documentation Checks Before Procurement
- Verify that the compound is labeled for research-use-only purposes.
- Review the batch-specific certificate of analysis.
- Confirm that purity data are supported by an analytical method.
- Check that the lot number on the COA matches the product documentation.
- Compare compound name, molecular weight, and No DAC distinction across records.
- Assess whether the product page separates literature context from product claims.
- Document storage and handling conditions in a laboratory record.
Next Steps for Research Documentation Review
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.
FAQs
What does research use only mean for CJC-1295 (No DAC)?
Research use only means CJC-1295 (No DAC) is intended solely for controlled laboratory research contexts.
What should researchers consider before they buy CJC-1295 (No DAC) for research?
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.
What does “No DAC” mean in CJC-1295 (No DAC)?
No DAC distinguishes this material from DAC-linked CJC-1295, which includes an albumin-binding drug affinity complex. Review the specific compound identity and lot documentation separately rather than transferring findings between the two forms.
Why does pituitary gland context appear in CJC-1295 research literature?
Pituitary gland context appears because CJC-1295 (No DAC) is discussed in GHRH analog research. Anterior pituitary, binding-site, cell-signaling, and signal-transduction findings describe research pathways; they do not establish outcomes for the supplied material.
How should researchers evaluate third-party documentation for CJC-1295 (No DAC)?
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.
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.
Lawrence A. Frohman
Author profile: ScienceDirect Author Profile
Lawrence A. Frohman’s peer-reviewed publications address CJC-1295, GHRH analogs, GH pulse patterns, and endocrine pathways. The selected papers provide context for interpreting study design, experimental models, and endocrine markers separately from the supplied lot’s documentation.
Selected publications:
- CJC-1295 GHRH analog study relevant to endocrine pathway literature — Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2006. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2005-1536
- CJC-1295 literature study relevant to GH pulse interpretation — Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 2006. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2006-1702
Siham Memdouh
Author profile: King’s College London Profile
Siham Memdouh’s published work addresses analytical testing, LC-MS/MS methodology, and characterization of GHRH synthetic analogs, including CJC-1295 and CJC-1295 with DAC.
Selected publications:
- Advances in the Detection of Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone Synthetic Analogs — Drug Testing and Analysis, 2021. DOI: 10.1002/dta.3183
- Doctoral thesis on peptide hormone analytical detection — King’s College London, 2023.
REFERENCES
- National Center for Biotechnology Information. CJC1295 Without DAC compound record. PubChem. Accessed 2026.
- Jetté L, Léger R, Thibaudeau K, et al. hGRF(1-29) albumin-bioconjugate CJC-1295 characterization study. Endocrinology. 2005. DOI: 10.1210/en.2004-1286.
- National Center for Biotechnology Information. GHRHR gene record. NCBI Gene. Updated 2026.
- UniProt Consortium. Growth hormone-releasing hormone receptor, human. UniProtKB Q02643. Accessed 2026.
- Mayo KE, Miller TL, DeAlmeida V, et al. GHRH receptor and pituitary somatotroph regulation review. Recent Progress in Hormone Research. 2000. PMID: 11036940.
- Pombo CM, Zalvide J, Gaylinn BD, et al. GHRH receptor pathway signaling study. Endocrinology. 2000.
- Teichman SL, Neale A, Lawrence B, Gagnon C, Castaigne JP, Frohman LA. CJC-1295 pharmacokinetic and endocrine endpoint study. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2006. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2005-1536.
- Ionescu M, Frohman LA. CJC-1295 pulsatile GH literature study. Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. 2006. DOI: 10.1210/jc.2006-1702.
- National Center for Biotechnology Information. CJC-1295 compound record. PubChem. Accessed 2026.
- Raun K, Hansen BS, Johansen NL, et al. Ipamorelin selective secretagogue research study. European Journal of Endocrinology. 1998. DOI: 10.1530/eje.0.1390552.
- National Center for Biotechnology Information. GHSR gene record. NCBI Gene. Updated 2026.
- Yin Y, Li Y, Zhang W. Growth hormone secretagogue receptor intracellular signaling review. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2014.
- International Council for Harmonisation. Q2(R2) Validation of Analytical Procedures. ICH Harmonised Guideline. 2023.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Analytical procedures and methods validation guidance. FDA Guidance. 2015.
- United States Pharmacopeia. General chapter on chromatography. USP. 2021.
- Mant CT, Hodges RS. HPLC analysis and purification of peptides. Methods in Molecular Biology. 2007.
- Karpievitch YV, Polpitiya AD, Anderson GA, Smith RD, Dabney AR. LC-MS-based peptide identification overview. Annals of Applied Statistics. 2010.
- Memdouh S, Gavrilović I, Ng K, Cowan D, Abbate V. GHRH synthetic analog detection study. Drug Testing and Analysis. 2021. PMID: 34665524.
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Supplier certificate of analysis and component-control Q&A. FDA. 2022.
- Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. 21 CFR 211.130 packaging and labeling operations. eCFR. Accessed 2026.
- International Council for Harmonisation. Q1A(R2) stability testing guideline. ICH Harmonised Guideline. 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.
There are no reviews yet.