$99.99
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.
Glutathione 600mg 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.
Glutathione 600mg 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. | 70-18-8 |
|---|---|
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Sequence | γ-L-Glutamyl-L-cysteinylglycine |
| Molecular Formula | C10H17N3O6S |
| Molecular Weight | 307.32 g/mol |
| Applications | Antioxidant research, detoxification studies, immune system modulation, skin health 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 explains how laboratory buyers evaluate and buy Glutathione for research while keeping the compound in a research-use-only documentation framework. Glutathione is indexed as a tripeptide with the molecular formula C10H17N3O6S and a molecular weight reported around 307.32–307.33 g/mol [1] [2]. The focus here is compound identity, redox research context, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and supplier documentation—not personal or retail positioning.
Researchers evaluating where to buy Glutathione for research should start with RUO labeling, compound identity, batch-specific COA, and analytical testing records before comparing supplier documentation. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. For Glutathione, the documentation trail should connect listing details to identity data, purity or impurity methods, and lot-level records [2] [11] [15].
The original commercial query becomes safe when it is framed as buy Glutathione for research. That phrasing changes the page from a retail buying guide into a technical procurement review focused on documentation, analytical support, and research-use-only labeling.
A strong product-page article should answer practical research-buyer questions without drifting into claims. The safest lens is simple: what can the product page document, what can analytical testing verify, and what should remain outside product positioning?
Before procurement review, lab teams should look for matching compound names, batch identifiers, COA availability, analytical method references, and storage documentation. ICH Q7 describes certificates of analysis as batch-linked documents that should include the name, batch number, release date, tests performed, acceptance limits, and numerical findings when applicable [15].
For a research product page, that means the product description should not stand alone. It should point researchers toward records that make the listing traceable.
RUO labeling tells the reader that the material is positioned for laboratory research, not for product-use claims. In FDA guidance for research-use-only IVD products, the agency distinguishes research labeling from diagnostic positioning; that same conservative principle is useful for keeping RUO product pages focused on research documentation rather than applied claims [16].
For Glutathione, RUO framing should appear in the listing, COA context, and supporting documentation. It should also shape what the page avoids.
Glutathione is commonly abbreviated GSH when referring to the reduced form in biochemical literature. PubChem lists glutathione under CID 124886, while USP identifies the compound by formula C10H17N3O6S and the name N-(N-L-γ-glutamyl-L-cysteinyl)glycine [1] [2].
Laboratory research discussions usually focus on glutathione as a redox-active tripeptide rather than as a consumer product. That distinction matters because the same term appears across academic, compendial, analytical, and retail contexts.
A tripeptide contains three amino acid residues. In Glutathione, the structural description centers on glutamate, cysteine, and glycine, with a γ-glutamyl linkage that is commonly noted in biochemical descriptions [3].
ChEMBL also lists Glutathione as CHEMBL1543 with formula C10H17N3O6S and molecular weight 307.33, which gives researchers a second database checkpoint for identity review [17]. Product-page documentation should align with these identity fields.
The cysteine residue is important in redox literature because its thiol group participates in reduced and oxidized glutathione chemistry [4]. Glycine and glutamic acid complete the three amino acid framework used to identify the compound in biochemical and compendial sources [2] [3].
This structure-centered view is useful for research documentation. It keeps the page anchored to identity, not claims.
L-glutathione appears in scientific and compendial naming conventions for the reduced compound form [2]. In redox models, researchers often distinguish reduced glutathione from glutathione disulfide, which is commonly abbreviated GSSG [4] [5].
That distinction can matter when reading literature or analytical records. A product page should be clear about the material being listed and should avoid merging identity language with study interpretation.
Antioxidant terminology is acceptable when it describes literature context, not product performance. Reviews describe glutathione as part of cellular redox homeostasis and reactive species chemistry, with functions discussed across antioxidant systems, enzyme cofactors, and signaling models [4] [5] [7].
The research-safe phrasing is narrow. The article can explain how antioxidant language appears in published literature, but it should not claim that a listed research material produces outcomes.
In academic writing, antioxidant language may describe free radical chemistry, reactive oxygen and nitrogen species, reduced and oxidized forms, or enzyme-linked redox activity [4] [7]. These are research concepts.
For product-page use, the safer wording is “antioxidant terminology in redox research.” That avoids converting the literature into a product claim.
A redox pathway finding does not become a product-page claim simply because the compound appears in the study. The page should separate “what literature examines” from “what a supplier can responsibly state.”
For Glutathione, that means explaining compound identity, COA records, and testing methods before discussing literature. The documentation should carry the commercial research intent.
Published glutathione literature often discusses oxidative stress as a model-specific research context [5] [6]. Aoyama and Nakaki describe glutathione as a redox buffer and antioxidant-system component in cellular redox homeostasis [5].
For RUO copy, oxidative stress should remain a research model term. It should not be used as a product claim or as a promise of outcome.
A Glutathione product description should make the research lane clear. It should state the compound identity, RUO positioning, documentation availability, lot traceability expectations, and analytical verification focus.
The best product-page description is not the longest one. It is the one that makes the research material easier to verify.
Relevant product information includes compound name, research category, lot number, COA access, analytical method references, storage notes, and labeling consistency. COA-related fields should align with batch-level documentation principles described in ICH Q7 [15].
The product description should also avoid overclaiming. It should help researchers confirm what the material is, not imply what it does.
Research material listings should avoid retail-format emphasis and should not borrow language from consumer product categories. For Glutathione, the page should focus on identity records, purity review, and laboratory documentation instead of supplement-style comparison language.
Customer reviews can be useful for general business due diligence, but they are not analytical evidence and should not replace COA records, method notes, or lot documentation.
Catalog details can identify a listing, but they should not become separate SEO targets. A canonical Glutathione page should target the compound entity, not individual sizes, amounts, or packaging formats.
That approach protects the page from unsafe search drift. It also keeps the content useful for researchers comparing documentation across supplier records.
Published literature frames Glutathione through biochemistry, redox homeostasis, glutathione synthesis, enzyme systems, and analytical measurement. Forman, Zhang, and Rinna review glutathione measurement and biosynthesis, while Lu reviews synthesis and redox signaling [3] [4].
The product page should treat this literature as context. It should not suggest that academic findings define the purpose of an RUO material.
Preclinical and in vitro sources can show how researchers model redox systems, enzyme-linked reactions, and glutathione-dependent pathways [6] [9]. They can also show where findings depend on model design, assay conditions, and analytical methods.
That does not make them product-use guidance. The page should keep the distinction clear.
Cell model findings are useful for mechanism and pathway context, but they are not broad claims. A safer evidence landscape separates source type from RUO interpretation.
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | Formula, structural naming, and compendial identity fields [1] [2] | Database and compendial documentation | Useful for verifying listing consistency |
| Redox homeostasis | GSH/GSSG redox pair and cellular redox environment [5] [8] | Peer-reviewed review literature | Provides model context, not product claims |
| Enzyme systems | Glutathione-dependent enzymes and reaction mechanisms [9] [10] | Mechanistic review literature | Helps organize pathway terminology |
| Analytical verification | HPLC and LC-MS approaches for glutathione-related measurements [11] [13] | Analytical chemistry sources | Supports documentation review |
This table is not a ranking system. It is a source-quality filter for research buyers.
Research buyers should separate official databases, peer-reviewed literature, analytical method sources, and supplier documents. Each source type answers a different question.
A database can support identity. A review can explain context. A COA can document a batch. An analytical method source can explain what a testing method can verify.
A COA should connect the listed compound to a specific batch or lot. ICH Q7 describes COA fields such as name, batch number, date of release, tests performed, acceptance limits, and numerical findings when applicable [15].
For Glutathione, the COA should be read alongside the product description. The goal is internal consistency across the listing, label, COA, and any testing records.
A certificate of analysis should not be treated as a decorative document. It is a technical record.
Researchers should check whether the COA is batch-specific, whether the compound name matches the listing, whether the method fields are clear, and whether the results are tied to the same lot. ICH Q7 also notes that certificates should be dated and signed by authorized quality personnel [15].
Lot-specific review should compare the lot number, release or report date, compound identity, purity or assay fields, and lab source. If the product page and COA do not match, procurement teams should resolve the discrepancy before moving forward.
Lot traceability is a central documentation concept. ICH Q7 describes batch identifiers and systems for identifying the status of each batch [15].
COA dates help researchers determine whether the document belongs to the current material record. Batch records help connect manufacturing, testing, labeling, and release documentation.
A date alone is not enough. The product page, label, COA, and lot record should tell the same story.
Purity and identity are related, but they are not the same review category. A purity result can describe a measured profile, while identity testing helps confirm that the material corresponds to the named compound.
For Glutathione research procurement, both categories matter. The strongest documentation links purity review, identity verification, and batch-specific records.
HPLC can support purity or impurity review by separating components under defined method conditions. FDA researchers reported validation of an HPLC-UV method for quantitative analysis of glutathione and four associated impurities, including method performance characteristics such as precision, accuracy, linearity, and quantitation limits [11].
A 2024 Journal of Pharmaceutical and Biomedical Analysis paper also describes an isocratic HPLC-UV procedure for assessing glutathione and related substances [12]. For product-page documentation, HPLC is useful when method details and batch linkage are clear.
LC-MS and LC-MS/MS can add identity-oriented information through mass detection and mass-to-charge data. Squellerio and colleagues compared LC-MS/MS with HPLC using electrochemical detection for glutathione measurement and reported improved selectivity and precision for the LC-MS/MS approach in that study setting [13].
In product documentation, LC-MS should be read as part of the full record. A mass-based result is strongest when it matches the compound identity, lot, COA, and method notes.
A chromatogram can show retention-time behavior and peak profile under specific method conditions. ICH Q2(R2) provides a general framework for validating analytical procedures, including principles that apply to chromatographic and spectroscopic data [14].
For researchers, chromatogram consistency is a documentation-quality signal. It should be tied to a method, date, sample, and lot record.
Analytical verification helps turn a product listing into a reviewable research record. It does not replace careful procurement judgment, but it gives lab teams objective fields to compare.
For Glutathione, useful analytical documentation may include HPLC records, LC-MS records, COA fields, assay notes, chromatogram files, and lot identifiers. These records should be evaluated together.
Mass spectrometry can help confirm whether a measured signal aligns with expected compound identity. In LC-MS/MS workflows, mass detection can improve selectivity when the method is suitable for the analyte and matrix [13].
For a research material listing, the key question is not just whether mass spectrometry appears on a document. The key question is whether the mass data match the correct lot and named compound.
Reference standards can improve confidence when analytical comparisons are properly documented. ICH Q7 discusses primary and secondary reference standards and notes that secondary reference standards should be compared against a primary reference standard before first use [15].
This matters because identity review depends on traceable comparison points. A product page should not overstate what a record shows.
Assay notes should be read as method-specific documentation, not universal proof. ICH Q2(R2) frames analytical validation around the intended purpose of the procedure, which means results should be interpreted within method scope [14].
For procurement review, conservative reading is safer. Researchers should ask what was tested, how it was tested, and which batch the record covers.
Supplier documentation should make the research material traceable. The product page, label, COA, batch record, and analytical files should connect through consistent naming and lot identifiers.
This is where Pure Lab Peptides can make a product page more useful to lab teams. Documentation clarity reduces ambiguity before procurement review.
Research buyers should compare identity data, COA availability, testing method transparency, batch specificity, lot traceability, and RUO labeling. They should also check whether any third-party documentation is clearly attributed and connected to the listed material.
The safer comparison is documentation quality, not product performance. That keeps the page aligned with research procurement.
Lot traceability links the public listing to the tested material record. ICH Q7 describes assigning distinctive batch or receipt numbers and recording the disposition of each batch [15].
For Glutathione, the product description should not float separately from the COA. The lot identifier should connect them.
Third-party documentation should show who performed the testing, what was tested, which method was used, and which lot was covered. Without that connection, the record is less useful for procurement review.
Attribution does not replace method review. It simply tells the research buyer where the document came from.
Claim boundaries keep a product page from becoming a wellness, retail, or applied-use article. The safest Glutathione page explains the compound, the literature context, and the documentation without claiming outcomes.
Phrases about product performance require careful handling because they can become claims if they are separated from model-specific literature or supplier records. RUO positioning should keep the page anchored to COA review, analytical testing, and lot traceability.
Study findings belong in literature context. Product claims belong to a different category and should not be created from model-specific research.
FDA’s RUO guidance for IVD products warns that certain forms of applied interpretive information can conflict with research-use-only positioning in that regulatory context [16]. A Glutathione research product page should follow the same conservative content logic.
Search language can drift when a commercial phrase is separated from RUO context. “Buy Glutathione for research” is the safe framing; a standalone retail query is not enough.
Glutathione supplements and similar retail phrases may appear in search data, but this page should not adopt that positioning. The canonical topic is the research compound and its documentation.
RUO copy should emphasize compound identity, product documentation, COA records, analytical testing, lot traceability, and careful literature interpretation. It should also keep clinical-use language outside product positioning.
The goal is not to hide the commercial intent. The goal is to make the commercial intent suitable for laboratory procurement.
Storage and handling documentation helps preserve the integrity of the research record. It should be written as laboratory documentation, not as product-use guidance.
ICH Q7 notes that special transport or storage conditions for an API or intermediate should be stated on the label and that contractors involved in transportation should know and follow appropriate conditions [15]. For RUO product pages, storage notes should be handled as recordkeeping information.
Laboratory teams should review the storage condition stated on the product page, the label, and the COA or supporting documentation. These records should align.
A storage statement is most useful when it is specific enough for laboratory recordkeeping. Vague wording makes the material harder to document.
Handling records help maintain continuity across receipt, storage, testing, and internal lab documentation. ICH Q7 describes written procedures for receipt, identification, quarantine, storage, handling, sampling, testing, and approval or rejection of materials [15].
For research procurement, the practical question is whether the documentation is complete enough for the lab’s internal quality process.
Several misunderstandings can weaken a research product page. The most common one is treating literature context as product positioning.
Another misunderstanding is treating a purity percentage as complete identity proof. A stronger review checks purity, identity, method details, and lot traceability together.
Research procurement centers on documentation. General retail purchasing often centers on format, claims, and broad comparison language.
For Glutathione research materials, the better question is: does the documentation confirm what the listing says? That question keeps the buyer focused on compound identity and verifiable records.
Retail language can confuse the intent of an RUO page because it invites the wrong interpretation. Boundary-sensitive terms should be separated from product positioning and treated, when needed, as examples of language the page avoids.
Common misunderstandings to clarify include:
A documentation-first checklist helps research buyers review the page consistently. It also keeps commercial intent safe by focusing on verifiable records.
For Glutathione, the checklist should connect identity, COA, analytical testing, label consistency, lot traceability, and storage documentation. Each item should be reviewed before supplier comparison.
Use this lab-test verification sequence for documentation review:
A practical quality checklist should include:
Lab teams should compare the COA, testing files, product description, label, and storage notes as one record set. If any field conflicts, the discrepancy should be resolved before procurement 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, and RUO labeling before evaluating this compound for laboratory research.
Research-use-only means Glutathione is positioned solely as a laboratory research material. It is not intended for human or animal consumption, diagnostic work, clinical application, veterinary application, or consumer product positioning. RUO review should focus on compound characterization, product documentation, batch-specific documentation, peptide identity, and whether the listing stays within laboratory research boundaries.
Researchers should consider documentation first before they buy Glutathione for research. The strongest review starts with RUO labeling, peptide COA availability, batch-specific documentation, peptide identity records, supplier documentation, and lot traceability. Product-page language should support procurement review without shifting into consumer claims, retail comparison language, or unsupported interpretations of published literature.
Glutathione is described in research literature as a tripeptide made from glutamate, cysteine, and glycine, with reduced and oxidized forms often discussed in redox models [1] [3]. In a product-page context, that identity supports compound characterization and research documentation. It should not be converted into applied claims about a research material.
Researchers review peptide COA documentation for Glutathione because it connects the listed material to batch-specific documentation. A useful COA can support review of compound name, lot number, assay field, method notes, report date, and lab source. The goal is to compare the COA against product documentation and confirm that the records describe the same research material.
HPLC and LC-MS support Glutathione documentation review by answering different analytical questions. HPLC can support peptide purity or impurity-profile review under defined method conditions, while LC-MS can support peptide identity or identity confirmation through mass-based data when paired with suitable records [11] [13]. Both methods should be evaluated with batch linkage and documentation context.
Published literature should be interpreted as research context, not product positioning. Glutathione literature may discuss pathway research, preclinical literature, in vitro research, redox systems, or model-specific findings [4] [5]. A research-use-only product page should keep those findings separate from supplier claims and focus on product documentation, peptide identity, analytical testing, and lot traceability.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: Cedars-Sinai Research Profile
Shelly C. Lu’s published work is relevant to the Glutathione research page because it frames glutathione synthesis, redox signaling, and pathway-focused research in a laboratory context. Her review literature is useful for separating biochemical background from product-page claims, especially where compound documentation and research model interpretation need clear boundaries. In the context of Cellular Redox and Antioxidant Research, these publications support a careful discussion of glutathione biosynthesis, cysteine-dependent pathway regulation, and redox-system terminology without turning published literature into research-material positioning. This makes her work a useful source for the scientific context behind identity-focused and literature-focused sections of the page.
Selected publications:
Author profile: USC Leonard Davis School of Gerontology Profile
Henry Jay Forman’s published work is relevant to this Glutathione research page because it provides background on redox signaling, oxidative stress models, and glutathione measurement. His articles help interpret glutathione as a cellular redox entity while keeping antioxidant terminology tied to literature context. Because the article emphasizes published literature, analytical testing, and careful claim boundaries, his research provides a strong scientific foundation for discussing redox-system language without converting model-specific findings into product claims. His work also aligns with the page’s emphasis on compound characterization, conservative literature interpretation, and laboratory research framing.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how this page handles published literature and search language around Glutathione. In Cellular Redox and Antioxidant Research content, terms such as liposomal glutathione, liposomal delivery, capsule, 500 mg, per serving, 60 capsules, allergen free, non-gmo, immune support, liver health, detoxification processes, and bioavailability can drift into consumer-facing, wellness, clinical-use, or product-claim language when framed incorrectly.
Here, those phrases are handled only as research-language examples, not as intended applications, outcomes, personal guidance, or recommendations. The focus remains on Glutathione identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, RUO labeling, product documentation, and published literature boundaries. Search terms associated with retail formats, supplement comparisons, or wellness positioning should stay separate from product positioning and be interpreted through documentation-first, model-specific 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.