$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.
Epitalon (Epithalon) 10mg 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.
Epitalon (Epithalon) 10mg 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. | 307297-39-8 |
|---|---|
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Sequence | Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly |
| Molecular Formula | C14H22N4O9 |
| Molecular Weight | 390.35 g/mol |
| 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. |
| Applications | Cellular longevity studies, senescence delay research, lifespan and aging research |
| 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.
Pure Lab Peptides created this guide for researchers evaluating where to buy Epitalon for research while keeping the review strictly limited to research-use-only documentation. Epitalon, also indexed as Epithalon, is commonly described as the synthetic tetrapeptide Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly, or AEDG, with PubChem listing the formula C14H22N4O9 and molecular weight of 390.35 g/mol [1]. This article focuses on peptide identity, published literature context, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and RUO boundaries rather than consumer, clinical, or personal-use framing.
Researchers looking to buy Epitalon for research should first review RUO labeling, compound identity data, a batch-specific COA, purity testing, identity verification, lot traceability, and storage documentation. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. Epitalon is documented as the AEDG tetrapeptide, so sequence and molecular records should align across supplier documentation [1], [2].
A commercial search should be reframed as a technical procurement review. The safe version of buy epithalon intent is buy Epitalon for research, which points to documentation, identity, and analytical verification rather than consumer purchase language.
For a product page, the key question is not promotional. It is whether the peptide listing, label, COA, and batch records consistently identify the same research material.
Start with the compound name, naming variants, molecular identity, and batch-specific COA. PubChem lists Epitalon with the synonym Epithalon and the sequence-related name Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly, which makes naming consistency important when reviewing supplier records [1].
Next, verify that analytical files match the same lot. A COA is more useful when it is batch-specific, method-aware, and aligned with the product label.
RUO labeling keeps the page anchored to laboratory research. FDA labeling materials for IVD contexts describe RUO language as tied to products in a laboratory research phase and not represented for diagnostic procedures; this article uses that as a documentation-boundary reference point, not as a peptide-specific approval statement [20].
For research buyers, the practical point is simple. RUO wording should be prominent, consistent, and separate from claims about outcomes.
Epitalon peptide documentation should be read as a laboratory research record. The product-page role is to help qualified researchers review what the compound is, how it is documented, and how the literature is bounded.
A research-use page should not turn study findings into product positioning. It should organize identity, purity, analytical method, storage documentation, and supplier review.
RUO means the material is positioned for controlled laboratory research and documentation review. It also means the product page should avoid language that sounds like personal guidance, wellness positioning, or product-effect messaging.
For Epitalon, RUO context is especially important because literature terms such as telomere, telomerase, melatonin, cellular aging, and longevity can easily drift into claim-led language if not framed as research context.
Claim-led copy can blur the line between published literature and product positioning. A safer product page explains what studies examined, which models were involved, and which records a research buyer should review.
This is also where boundary-sensitive phrases require care. Terms such as anti-aging or product effects should appear only as examples of language that can become unsupported claims when separated from model-specific literature.
Epitalon is a synthetic peptide commonly described as a tetrapeptide made from four amino acids: alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and glycine [1], [3]. NCATS Inxight also identifies Epitalon by the sequence Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly and notes that most studies were conducted by the institute associated with the compound’s development [2].
In research literature, Epitalon is often discussed with pineal peptide, telomerase, gene expression, and cellular model terminology. Those topics should be presented as literature context only.
The compound is classified as a short synthetic tetrapeptide rather than a protein, antibody, or large biologic. PubChem lists Epitalon under CID 219042 with molecular formula C14H22N4O9 and molecular weight 390.35 g/mol [1].
That identity data gives researchers a baseline for documentation review. The peptide name, synonym set, formula, molecular weight, and sequence should not conflict across the label, COA, and product-page record.
Epitalon and Epithalon are common spelling variants in databases and literature. PubChem lists Epithalon and Epithalone among synonyms for Epitalon [1].
A product page can acknowledge the Epithalon peptide spelling without making it the canonical compound target. For SEO and documentation clarity, Epitalon remains the primary name, while epithalon research phrasing can be handled as a search variant.
For a tetrapeptide, sequence order is part of identity. Epitalon is associated with Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly, so documentation should not merely state “peptide” without confirming the specific peptide sequence [1], [2].
Sequence documentation also helps separate identity review from purity review. A purity value can describe chromatographic composition, but it does not replace molecular identity confirmation.
Epitalon’s molecular record gives researchers a way to compare product-page data against official and academic sources. PubChem lists the compound formula, molecular weight, synonyms, and structural identifiers, while NCATS provides additional research-development context [1], [2].
A strong supplier record should make this comparison easy. The product listing should not leave researchers guessing which naming variant, sequence, or molecular identity applies.
Amino acid sequence details support documentation by anchoring the compound to a defined molecular structure. For Epitalon, the AEDG sequence corresponds to alanine, glutamic acid, aspartic acid, and glycine [1].
This matters because peptide production, labeling, and COA review all depend on identifying the correct research material. A vague peptide label is weaker than a record that includes name, synonym, sequence, formula, and lot details.
Molecular weight and formula are core identity checkpoints. Epitalon’s listed molecular formula is C14H22N4O9, and its molecular weight is 390.35 g/mol in PubChem [1].
Researchers can compare those values against supplier documentation. Mismatches should be resolved before the material is selected for a laboratory record.
Telomeres are DNA-protein structures at chromosome ends, and telomerase is an enzyme complex involved in adding telomeric repeats under specific biological conditions [6]. These concepts appear often in Epitalon literature, especially in cell culture and telomerase activity discussions [4], [5].
That does not make telomere language a product claim. It is a research context that requires careful evidence interpretation.
Telomere literature can show how chromosome-end biology is measured and interpreted in defined research systems. NCBI Bookshelf describes telomeres as chromosomal caps that help preserve linear DNA integrity, while de Lange’s review explains how telomere-associated complexes protect chromosome ends [6], [7].
For an Epitalon page, this supports background understanding. It does not support claims about research-material outcomes outside the cited model.
Khavinson and colleagues reported that Epithalon peptide induced telomerase activity and telomere elongation in human somatic cell cultures [4]. A 2025 Biogerontology article also examined Epitalon and telomere length in cell-line models through telomerase upregulation or ALT activity [5].
A research-safe interpretation is narrow. These are literature findings in defined models, not product-page claims.
Telomere length is connected to genomic stability because chromosome ends need protection from being interpreted as DNA breaks [6], [7]. Telomerase activity and telomere length therefore belong in a mechanistic literature section, not in promotional copy.
The phrase “telomerase activity and telomere” should be handled as a research topic. It should not be turned into an implied product-performance statement.
Epitalon is often described as a pineal peptide because the literature connects it to Epithalamin, a peptide preparation associated with pineal gland research [3]. The pineal gland is also central to melatonin secretion and light-dark signaling, according to Endotext [8].
For product-page content, this background helps explain same-lane research context. It should remain separate from wellness language.
Pineal peptide literature provides historical and mechanistic context for Epitalon. A 2025 review describes Epitalon, also known as Epithalon or Epithalone, as the AEDG tetrapeptide synthesized from amino acid composition associated with Epithalamin [3].
That relationship is useful for source discovery. It should not be used to imply that a research material is equivalent to every preparation or study context in the literature.
Endotext describes melatonin as a pineal hormone whose rhythmic production is used as a marker of internal circadian timing [8]. One Epitalon study in senescent monkeys examined melatonin and cortisol secretion patterns as neuroendocrine research endpoints [9].
For an RUO product page, these topics belong in literature context. They should not be written as claims about research-material performance.
Cellular aging and longevity terms appear in the Epitalon literature, especially in papers involving telomeres, gene expression, pineal models, and lifespan-related endpoints [3], [12]. These terms require neutral wording because they can easily become consumer-facing claims.
A product page should describe how the literature frames model systems. It should not state or imply human outcomes.
Longevity research language should stay attached to study design, model type, and limitation. Anisimov and colleagues examined biomarkers, lifespan, and spontaneous tumor incidence in female Swiss-derived SHR mice, which is a model-specific evidence category [12].
The safe wording is “published literature examined” or “researchers evaluated.” Avoid turning model findings into claims about the peptide product.
Cellular senescence is a research term linked to replicative limits, telomere shortening, and DNA damage signaling in cell biology literature [6]. In Epitalon research, senescence-related wording appears most safely when tied to in vitro or preclinical literature categories [4], [5].
The boundary is straightforward. Cellular model relevance does not become product positioning.
Age-related pathway language should be treated as a literature label. It can describe the type of model being studied, such as telomere biology, gene expression, oxidative stress, or circadian rhythm.
It should not become an “anti-aging” claim. On an RUO page, that phrase is best reserved for boundary discussion because it can imply consumer outcomes when removed from research context.
Oxidative stress and antioxidant enzyme topics appear in broader pineal peptide and telomere literature. NCBI Bookshelf notes that telomere biology is discussed alongside oxidative stress and reactive oxygen species in cellular contexts [6].
Epitalon-related antioxidant literature should be framed as model-specific. The purpose is to describe research areas, not product effects.
Oxidative stress models help researchers interpret how redox-related endpoints are studied in cells, tissues, or preclinical systems. Kozina and colleagues reported antioxidant properties for pineal peptide preparations including Epitalon and Epithalamin, making the topic relevant to literature review [11].
For product copy, the safer phrasing is “oxidative stress models have been examined.” It should not say that a research material changes oxidative stress in a real-world setting.
Antioxidant enzymes can serve as mechanistic markers in research. They may appear alongside reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage, redox signaling, and gene expression endpoints in laboratory literature [6], [11].
These markers are useful for article depth. They are not a substitute for batch documentation, peptide identity, or analytical verification.
Researchers should interpret Epitalon findings through an evidence ladder: compound identity, in vitro research, preclinical model literature, and broader review context. Each level can support understanding, but none should be converted into product-use guidance.
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | Epitalon as Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly with formula and molecular weight records [1], [2] | Official database | Supports identity review, not product claims |
| Telomere and telomerase | Telomerase activity, telomere length, and human somatic cell or cell-line findings [4], [5] | In vitro and cell-line literature | Supports model-specific interpretation |
| Pineal and circadian context | Pineal gland, melatonin, and circadian rhythm research background [8], [9] | Endocrine and preclinical literature | Helps explain research lane |
| Gene expression | AEDG peptide research involving gene expression and protein synthesis markers [10] | Cell-model literature | Supports mechanism discussion only |
| Carcinogenesis and tumor incidence models | Rodent model literature involving carcinogenesis and tumor incidence endpoints [12], [13] | Preclinical literature | Requires strong limitation language |
In vitro and cell culture studies can provide molecular and pathway signals under controlled laboratory conditions. Khavinson’s 2003 paper reported telomerase activity and telomere elongation in human somatic cell cultures, while the 2025 Biogerontology article examined telomere length in human cell-line models [4], [5].
These models help explain telomerase activity. They do not create conclusions beyond the study context.
Animal model literature can show how researchers have examined endpoints such as lifespan, tumor incidence, melatonin, and carcinogenesis in controlled preclinical systems. Anisimov and colleagues reported model-specific tumor incidence findings in mice, while a separate colon carcinogenesis paper examined Epitalon in chemically induced rat models [12], [13].
The value is evidence mapping. The limitation is that preclinical literature is not product positioning.
Carcinogenesis and tumor incidence studies require careful wording because they can drift into disease or prevention claims if misframed. The safer approach is to identify the model, cite the literature, and state that these findings are not claims for research-use-only materials [12], [13].
This caution is essential for Epitalon research pages. Scientific context must remain separate from product copy.
Published literature is not the same as a product claim. A paper may examine telomerase activity, gene expression, circadian markers, or oxidative stress endpoints, but an RUO product page should still focus on compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, and documentation boundaries.
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.
Study findings are tied to study models, assay conditions, and research limitations. A product claim is a statement about what the listed material does, which is not the role of an RUO product page.
For Epitalon, telomerase, telomere lengthening, pineal, melatonin, antioxidant, and longevity terminology should remain in literature-review language. The page should not claim that a product creates those outcomes.
Claim boundaries support RUO positioning by keeping the page anchored to documentation. The safest product-page structure separates “what literature examined” from “what the product listing documents.”
A simple boundary framework helps: literature context belongs in citations, product review belongs in COA and lot records, and promotional claims stay out of the page.
Product-page copy should keep research findings, supplier documentation, and commercial intent in different lanes. Commercial intent can be satisfied with documentation review, not outcome language.
Common misunderstandings to avoid include treating a review article as product validation, reading a purity percentage as full identity confirmation, treating a catalog amount as research guidance, or converting preclinical findings into product claims.
A certificate of analysis matters because it connects a research material to batch-level testing documentation. FDA guidance on analytical procedures states that method validation data can support documentation of identity, quality, purity, and related quality attributes in regulated drug and biologic contexts; for RUO peptide pages, that principle is useful as a documentation framework rather than a regulatory claim [14].
For Epitalon, a COA should help researchers compare name, lot number, analytical method, purity data, and identity data.
A useful COA should show the compound name, lot number, testing date, analytical method, purity result, and identity-supporting data. It should also align with the peptide identity record for Epitalon as AEDG [1].
A COA is strongest when it is batch-specific. A generic file is less useful for procurement review.
Researchers should compare the COA against the product label and product listing. The compound name, synonym, molecular weight, and lot number should not conflict.
The COA should also make the analytical basis clear. ICH Q2(R2), adopted by FDA, describes analytical procedure validation as a framework for showing that an analytical procedure is fit for its intended purpose [15].
HPLC and LC-MS serve different documentation roles. HPLC is widely used for peptide separation and purity-related review, while LC-MS combines liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry for molecular identification and quantitation workflows [17], [18].
For Epitalon, analytical verification is strongest when purity and identity evidence are both present.
Documentation verification sequence:
HPLC supports peptide purity review by separating peptide-related components under defined chromatographic conditions. Mant and Hodges describe HPLC as a versatile method for peptide isolation and purification across peptide types and complexity levels [17].
For a COA, the key is not only the purity number. Researchers should also review whether the method, chromatogram, and lot match the product record.
LC-MS can support peptide identity confirmation by connecting chromatographic separation with mass spectrometry data. Mass spectrometry reports ions by mass-to-charge ratio, and NIST defines mass-to-charge ratio as the mass of an ion divided by its charge [19].
For Epitalon, LC-MS documentation should be read alongside the expected molecular identity. PubChem’s molecular weight record gives a reference point for that review [1].
Supplier documentation supports buy Epitalon for research decisions by showing whether the listing is technically complete. Strong documentation includes RUO labeling, COA access, analytical method information, lot-level traceability, and storage records.
FDA’s Q14 guidance describes science-based and risk-based approaches for analytical procedure development in regulated quality contexts; for RUO pages, that supports the broader principle that method documentation should be clear and maintainable [16].
Lot traceability links the product label, COA, testing file, and supplier record. FDA IVD labeling materials also identify lot or control number traceability as part of general-purpose reagent labeling context [20].
For peptide research procurement, a lot number should not be treated as a minor detail. It is the connection point between the physical research material and its documentation trail.
Labeling consistency matters because Epitalon has multiple naming variants. A listing may reference Epitalon, Epithalon, Epithalone, AEDG, or Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly; those labels should map back to the same compound identity record [1].
When a research team evaluates where to buy Epitalon for research, label consistency is part of risk reduction. It helps prevent confusion between synonyms, catalog fields, and batch documents.
Storage and handling documentation should be recorded as part of laboratory material management. If the product page identifies a lyophilized peptide, the supporting documentation should state the relevant storage conditions and recordkeeping expectations.
This section is documentation-focused. It does not provide preparation, personal-use, or experimental application guidance.
A procurement checklist helps research buyers compare supplier documentation without drifting into consumer framing.
Peptide quantification and purity review can vary by method, which is why method context should be read with the COA rather than reduced to a single number [21].
Lab teams should compare supplier documentation across identity, purity, method, lot, date, label, and storage records. They should also compare the product-page language against the RUO boundary.
For Epitalon, the most important identity cross-checks are the canonical compound name, Epithalon spelling variant, AEDG sequence, molecular formula, and molecular weight [1].
Pure Lab Peptides product-page review should prioritize research documentation over promotional language. The pathway is: confirm RUO framing, review compound identity, compare COA and lot records, evaluate analytical testing, then interpret literature separately.
That workflow supports commercial research intent while keeping the page focused on laboratory research. It also keeps the Epitalon peptide listing aligned with responsible research-material review.
Review the product-page documentation, COA details, and RUO labeling before evaluating this compound for laboratory research. For research teams comparing peptide suppliers, prioritize COA availability, transparent labeling, lot-level documentation, and analytical testing records.
Research use only means Epitalon is intended solely for laboratory research contexts. For a product page, RUO positioning should keep the focus on peptide identity, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and batch documentation. It also means published literature should be interpreted as research context, not as product-positioning language.
Researchers should consider documentation first before they buy Epitalon for research. Key review points include RUO labeling, peptide identity, a batch-specific COA, analytical testing records, lot traceability, and supplier documentation. A source quality filter can also help separate official databases, peer-reviewed literature, and analytical records from unsupported marketing language.
Epitalon AEDG is documented as a short peptide associated with the Ala-Glu-Asp-Gly sequence, so identity review should compare the name, synonym records, molecular data, and peptide sequence [1]. Research documentation should also check whether batch records align with the product label, COA, and analytical testing files.
Telomere findings should be interpreted as model-specific research context. Telomeres are often described as protective caps at the ends of chromosomes, and Epitalon literature has examined telomerase-related readouts in defined research models [4], [6]. Those findings should not be converted into product claims; they belong in published literature interpretation.
Analytical details can support Epitalon peptide review by showing how identity and purity were evaluated. Researchers may review HPLC records, LC-MS data, a chromatogram, retention time notes, assay context, and reference standard alignment when available. These records are strongest when they connect clearly to the same lot and COA.
Epitalon research pages should stay research-use-only by separating literature findings from product claims. Language about antioxidant defense, antioxidant activity, animal studies, or increased telomerase should remain tied to cited research models and study limits. The product page should return to compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and RUO labeling.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: RUDN Journal of Medicine Profile
Vladimir K. Khavinson is recognized for published work connected to short peptide research, Epitalon literature, telomerase markers, and gene expression models. His publications helped shape the broader scientific background for discussing Epitalon as a synthetic tetrapeptide within bioregulator peptide research. The selected publications below are especially relevant to the article’s discussion of peptide identity, telomere and telomerase literature, AEDG sequence context, and peptide regulation in laboratory research models.
Selected publications:
Author profile: ORCID
Vladimir N. Anisimov is recognized for peer-reviewed research involving Epitalon in preclinical model literature. His publications are relevant to the article’s evidence-landscape discussion because they connect Epitalon with model-specific endpoints, carcinogenesis literature, and research interpretation limits. This work provides useful context for separating published findings from product-page claims while keeping the article focused on research documentation, laboratory literature, and model-specific interpretation.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how Pure Lab Peptides handles published literature and search language around Epitalon. In bioregulator peptide research content, phrases such as potential anti-aging, therapeutic applications, immune function, health, sleep, disease, cancer, bioavailability, absorption, and peptide therapy can drift into consumer-facing, clinical-use, wellness, or product-claim language when framed incorrectly. These terms should remain separated from product positioning and tied only to model-specific research interpretation.
For this page, boundary-sensitive wording is handled as research-language context rather than product uses, outcomes, instructions, or recommendations. The focus remains on Epitalon identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, RUO labeling, product documentation, and published literature boundaries. Any discussion of research suggests, study phrasing, or model-specific endpoints should support careful literature interpretation, not product performance or consumer outcomes.
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.