$54.99
Research Studies:
Out of stock
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.
HGH 191aa 10IU 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.
HGH 191aa 10IU 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. | 12629-01-5 |
|---|---|
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Sequence | (191 amino acid sequence identical to endogenous human growth hormone; exact sequence available upon request) |
| Molecular Formula | C990H1529N263O299S7 |
| Molecular Weight | 22,125 Da |
| Applications | Tissue regeneration, metabolic research, anti-aging studies, muscle growth |
| 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 Pure Lab Peptides product-page guide is for research teams evaluating where to buy HGH for research while staying within research-use-only documentation, COA review, and analytical testing boundaries. It frames HGH as a laboratory research material, not as a consumer, wellness, medical, veterinary, or personal-use product. The goal is to help qualified research buyers review compound identity, literature context, lot documentation, purity data, and supplier information before procurement.
Researchers evaluating where to buy HGH for research should first review RUO labeling, compound identity, batch-specific COA records, analytical testing, 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. HGH product-page review should stay focused on research documentation, not personal-use guidance or clinical interpretation.
The phrase “buy HGH for research” should lead to a technical procurement review, not a consumer buying path. For Pure Lab Peptides, that means the page should help laboratory buyers verify what the material is, how it is labeled, what documentation is available, and whether the product information supports research-use-only evaluation.
A safer interpretation of “buy human growth hormone for research” is documentation-first. The search intent becomes: Is the compound labeled clearly, is the COA batch-specific, and do the identity and purity records align?
The first documents to review are the product listing, COA, label information, lot number, analytical method notes, and any storage or handling records. FDA quality guidance for active ingredient documentation states that certificates of analysis should include information such as the material name, batch number, release date, tests performed, acceptance limits, and numerical results when applicable [6].
A product page should not ask researchers to infer identity from marketing language. The documentation should identify the research material in clear, technical terms.
RUO labeling matters because it defines the boundary of the product page. It tells research teams that the material is supplied for laboratory research, not as a food, cosmetic, household product, supplement, medical product, or veterinary product.
Labeling also helps procurement teams separate a research material from unrelated search language. A clear RUO statement keeps the review centered on documentation, analytical testing, and laboratory recordkeeping.
Research-use-only context turns a commercial product page into a documentation guide. The page may discuss HGH identity, published literature, and analytical methods, but it should not translate those topics into claims about people, animals, wellness, appearance, body composition, or performance.
RUO positioning should state that the material is for qualified laboratory research and that any literature discussion is educational context. Scientific databases describe HGH through protein identity, gene identity, and pathway classification, while an RUO product page should connect those concepts to product documentation and lab review [1], [2].
The key point is scope. The page can explain what researchers should check, but it should not describe non-laboratory application.
Safe product-page copy uses terms such as research peptide, product information, certificate of analysis, analytical testing, lot traceability, and supplier documentation. It avoids turning published findings into product positioning.
For Pure Lab Peptides, commercial intent can remain present without becoming unsafe. The page can support research procurement by explaining what to verify before purchase.
HGH stands for human growth hormone, also known as GH or somatotropin in scientific resources. The NCBI MeSH record describes human growth hormone as a 191-amino-acid polypeptide hormone secreted by the anterior pituitary, also known as GH or somatotropin [9].
In research literature, HGH belongs to the somatotropin/prolactin family of hormones, and the GH1 gene is located within a growth hormone locus on chromosome 17 [2]. UniProt identifies the reviewed human GH1 protein entry as somatotropin and links the protein to human growth hormone identity [1].
For a product page, this identity context helps reviewers compare the compound name, synonym set, and molecular records across documentation. It does not create a product claim.
Somatotropin is a scientific synonym for growth hormone, while somatropin is commonly used for recombinant human growth hormone in official pharmacology resources [3]. The Guide to Pharmacology notes that recombinant somatropin has the same 191-amino-acid sequence as endogenous human growth hormone [3].
Naming consistency matters because product pages, COAs, and labels may use different terms. A good review checks whether HGH, human growth hormone, GH, somatotropin, and somatropin are being used coherently.
The 191 amino acids matter because they help define the canonical mature HGH identity used in research documentation. Endotext describes GH as a single-chain protein with 191 amino acids and two disulfide bonds [10].
That sequence-level identity is separate from catalog presentation. Researchers should compare amino acid count, molecular mass, and synonym records as documentation markers, not as product-performance claims.
Recombinant HGH is relevant to product-page review because documentation should distinguish recombinant material, molecular identity, purity assessment, and batch-specific records. Some research and database sources describe recombinant somatropin as aligned with endogenous 191-amino-acid human growth hormone [3].
Published research on recombinant human growth hormone describes hGH as a 22 kDa endogenous and non-glycosylated protein consisting of 191 amino acids [12]. In product documentation, that kind of molecular description helps reviewers understand whether the product description is technically consistent.
This does not mean a product page should overstate identity from a single line. It means reviewers should look for alignment among COA, supplier documentation, and independent scientific records.
Molecular mass, sequence records, and lot matching create a documentation chain. Endotext describes the principal 22 kDa GH isoform in pituitary and blood, while other literature notes GH isoform diversity and immunoassay complexity [10], [11].
For research procurement, the practical question is whether the lot-specific COA, label, and product information match the same molecular entity. A mismatch between lot records and product-page copy should trigger further documentation review.
The product description should tell a researcher what the material is, what documentation is available, and what research-use boundaries apply. Product information should not make claims that belong outside RUO product-page scope.
A research product description should include the compound name, relevant synonyms, research-use-only labeling, documentation availability, storage documentation, and analytical testing references when available. For protein and polypeptide products, ICH Q6B emphasizes characterization concepts such as physicochemical properties, immunochemical properties, purity, impurities, and quantity [4].
This gives the product page a practical structure. It helps buyers review the material as a laboratory item.
Labeling consistency supports technical review by connecting product page, COA, package label, and lot record. ATCC’s COA retrieval page illustrates the general principle that a lot number on a label or packing slip must match the COA request field exactly [7].
For HGH research materials, the same discipline applies. The lot number should not be treated as a minor detail; it is the bridge between listing information and batch-specific documentation.
Useful product information elements include the product name, synonym set, lot number, COA date, analytical method, purity record, storage condition, and expiration or retest record. FDA Q7 describes COA elements such as batch number, date of release, tests performed, acceptance limits, numerical results, and authorized quality-unit signature [6].
Lot comparison should stay documentation-focused. It is not a comparison of expected outcomes.
Growth hormone pathway literature gives researchers a scientific frame for reading HGH-related publications. It should be handled as literature context, not as a product-use claim.
Endotext states that GH1 codes for the main adult growth hormone produced in somatotrophic cells of the anterior pituitary gland, with GH2 coding for placental GH [10]. The same source describes GH stimulation of IGF-I production as part of the GH axis [10].
This background can help research teams interpret papers on insulin-like growth factor signaling. It does not define an intended application for any RUO material.
Anterior pituitary secretion should be framed as scientific background. NCBI Bookshelf describes GH secretion as pulsatile and regulated through hypothalamic and pituitary interactions [13], while StatPearls identifies somatotrophs as anterior pituitary cells that produce growth hormone [14].
Signal pathway language should also stay neutral. Reviews describe growth hormone receptor activation and downstream JAK2/STAT5-related signaling, but those mechanistic findings should remain separate from product claims [15], [16].
Cell culture and in vitro models can appear in HGH literature and assay development. These models support controlled laboratory investigation, not non-laboratory application.
NCBI Bookshelf describes in vitro cell culture as a method for studying cell behavior in a controlled environment outside systemic variation [19]. That makes cell culture relevant to pathway research, assay controls, and model-specific interpretation.
A product page should not turn cell model findings into broader claims. The model, assay, and conditions must remain visible.
HEK293 cells are widely used in recombinant protein expression and cell-culture platforms because they are highly transfectable and adaptable to different culture formats [20]. Cell culture reviews also stress that laboratory variables such as media, contamination control, and culture conditions affect reproducibility [21].
For HGH research documentation, HEK models and serum variables should be discussed only as assay context. They are not product claims.
Published literature should be interpreted by model type, source quality, analytical method, and evidence limit. A research product page should help readers understand what literature can and cannot show.
Published literature can show how researchers define HGH, characterize isoforms, study receptor interactions, and evaluate pathway models. For example, Baumann’s review describes GH isoforms, GH1 and GH2 gene products, post-translational forms, binding proteins, and immunoassay complexity [11].
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | GH1, somatotropin, synonym alignment, and protein records [1], [2] | Official database | Supports naming and documentation review |
| Molecular structure | 191-amino-acid GH and receptor complex structure [10], [17] | Review and structural database | Supports identity context, not product claims |
| Receptor signaling | Growth hormone receptor activation and JAK2/STAT pathway context [15], [16] | Review literature | Supports pathway interpretation |
| Analytical review | HPLC, LC-MS, and SDS-PAGE records [22], [23], [25] | Analytical literature | Supports documentation review |
Literature limits should be stated wherever the page discusses pathways, assays, or model-specific findings. 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.
This is the key research boundary. Literature can inform scientific context, but it should not become product positioning.
A strong source quality filter starts with official databases, peer-reviewed papers, method literature, and regulatory-quality documentation. ChEMBL lists somatropin as a compound record associated with growth hormone receptor agonist classification, which can help researchers cross-check pharmacology terminology [18].
Marketing-style claims are not a substitute for database records or method-specific documentation. For a research product page, source quality should be visible.
Claim boundaries keep HGH product pages focused on research documentation instead of consumer-facing interpretation. They separate what scientific literature examines from what a supplier may responsibly say about an RUO research material.
Study findings should stay separate from product claims because a model-specific observation does not define product purpose. Research literature may describe receptor signaling, molecular interactions, or assay behavior, but those findings remain tied to study design and model conditions [15], [16].
A product page should summarize the research context while pointing buyers back to COA review, analytical testing, and lot documentation.
Commercial search intent can drift when broad phrases are rewritten as product effects, wellness positioning, or clinical-use language. RUO product-page content should avoid that drift by keeping the page anchored to compound identity, documentation, lot traceability, and analytical review.
This is especially important for HGH because search behavior may mix laboratory research language with unrelated non-RUO intent. The safer approach is documentation-first.
RUO copy should emphasize research-use-only labeling, product information, COA availability, analytical testing, and clear limits on interpretation. It should also make clear that pathway relevance is not the same as an intended non-laboratory application.
For Pure Lab Peptides, strong RUO copy helps qualified researchers answer documentation questions before procurement.
COA documentation matters because it connects a specific lot to tests, results, and identity markers. Without a batch-specific COA, a product page is harder to evaluate.
COA documentation should confirm the material name, batch or lot number, analytical method, test result, date, and laboratory source when available. FDA Q7 states that authentic certificates of analysis should be issued for each batch on request and should list each test performed, acceptance limits, and numerical results when applicable [6].
For HGH research materials, the COA should support identity and purity review. It should not function as marketing copy.
Batch-specific records let researchers match the product label to the COA and related documentation. ATCC’s COA system shows a comparable lot-specific approach by requiring the item number and lot number found on the label or packing slip [7].
This is why lot traceability is central to research procurement. Batch records create accountability.
Third-party documentation can add confidence when it shows the testing source, method, date, and batch connection. ICH Q6B highlights the role of tests, analytical procedures, and acceptance criteria in biological-product characterization [4].
Researchers should still read the whole documentation set. A third-party line item is helpful only when it is clear and batch-specific.
Purity and identity are related, but they are not the same review question. Purity data can describe a profile, while identity testing asks whether the material matches the stated compound.
HPLC is widely used in peptide analysis because it can separate peptide mixtures using modes such as reversed-phase, ion-exchange, and size-exclusion chromatography [22]. For an HGH product page, HPLC data can help researchers review purity records and chromatographic consistency.
A purity percentage should be read with the method and lot record. The number alone does not complete identity review.
LC-MS links liquid-chromatography separation with mass-spectrometry information. LC-HRMS literature describes its value for identifying and characterizing peptide-related impurities and supporting peptide quality-control workflows [23].
For larger proteins and recombinant products, LC-MS peptide mapping may also support primary-structure review when paired with suitable digestion, reference records, and method documentation [24]. The product page should not imply that one method answers every analytical question.
SDS-PAGE is commonly used to estimate apparent protein molecular weight based on migration of detergent-complexed proteins through polyacrylamide gel [25]. For HGH research documentation, SDS-PAGE can support protein characterization by adding a band-pattern or apparent-mass record.
A documentation-focused lab-test verification sequence can include:
Immunoassay methods can appear in HGH research literature and assay design. They should be framed as laboratory methods, not as product claims.
NCBI’s Assay Guidance Manual describes ELISA as a laboratory method that detects and quantifies specific molecules through antibody binding to specific molecular structures [26]. ELISA reviews describe antigen-antibody interaction and enzyme-linked detection as core principles of the method [27].
For HGH research, ELISA context belongs in method discussion. It should not be used to imply a product outcome.
Mouse monoclonal references may appear in immunoassay documentation when an antibody reagent is used in an assay design. Immunoassay guidance emphasizes that assay components must be evaluated for sensitivity and dynamic range in the selected format [26].
A research product page should treat antibody references as assay-design context. They are part of documentation review, not a claim about the supplied material.
Lot traceability, packaging, and storage documentation help research teams assess whether the product-page record is complete. For protein and polypeptide materials, storage context can be especially important.
Lot traceability adds a direct connection between the product page, label, COA, and documentation record. FDA Q7 describes batch numbering and material identity controls as part of incoming-material review and documentation systems [6].
For supplier evaluation, this makes the question concrete: can the research buyer trace the listed material to the batch-specific record?
ICH Q5C notes that biotechnology products, including proteins and polypeptides, may be sensitive to environmental factors such as temperature changes, oxidation, light, ionic content, and shear [8]. It also explains that well-defined stability programs are used to confirm stability during the intended storage period [8].
For HGH research materials, storage and expiration records should be documented as laboratory quality information. They should not be used as claims beyond the product’s RUO scope.
A practical procurement review keeps the page grounded in documentation. The checklist below is designed for laboratory buyers comparing research-use-only HGH materials.
Before they buy HGH for research, researchers should compare RUO labeling, product description, product information, COA availability, purity method, identity method, lot traceability, storage documentation, and supplier transparency. ICH Q2(R2) frames analytical procedures around purposes such as identity, purity, impurities, assay, and other qualitative or quantitative measurements [5].
Common misunderstandings to avoid:
Pure Lab Peptides can present HGH research information by centering the page on RUO labeling, COA documentation, analytical testing, lot traceability, and neutral literature context. That approach supports commercial research intent without drifting into unsupported claims.
Research-use-only notice: “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 HGH for laboratory research through Pure Lab Peptides.
Researchers should consider documentation first before they buy HGH for research. A research review should check RUO labeling, batch-specific COA records, peptide identity, lot traceability, storage documentation, and supplier documentation. The review should also confirm that product-page language stays focused on laboratory material evaluation rather than non-research positioning.
Research use only means HGH is intended solely for qualified laboratory research contexts. It is not intended for human or animal consumption, diagnostic evaluation, clinical application, veterinary application, or consumer-facing purposes. For product-page review, RUO positioning should keep the focus on compound characterization, COA documentation, analytical testing, and research documentation.
Peptide identity matters because researchers need to confirm that HGH records align across the product page, COA, label, and batch documentation. Identity review may include the compound name, synonym set, molecular record, and analytical data. LC-MS can support identity verification when paired with suitable reference data and batch-specific documentation [23].
HPLC and LC-MS support analytical review by addressing different documentation questions. HPLC can help evaluate peptide purity through chromatogram review, retention time comparison, and method notes. LC-MS can support identity review by connecting mass-related data, including mass-to-charge ratio context, with a stated research compound record [22], [23].
Receptor research helps place HGH literature in an endocrine pathway context. Published literature discusses growth hormone receptor signaling and related pathway models, but those findings should remain tied to study design and model conditions [15], [16]. For RUO product pages, receptor research should support literature interpretation, not product claims.
Preclinical literature should be interpreted as model-specific research context. It may discuss endocrine signaling, hypothalamus-related regulation, growth hormone secretion, metabolic research models, or assay conditions, but those topics should not be converted into product-positioning claims. A safe product-page interpretation returns to COA review, peptide identity, analytical testing, and RUO labeling.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine
Gerhard Baumann’s published work is directly relevant to HGH identity, GH isoforms, and the documentation challenges that can arise when research teams compare growth hormone records across literature and laboratory materials. His reviews on growth hormone heterogeneity and isoform structure help frame why naming consistency, molecular form, and assay interpretation matter in endocrine growth hormone research. This context supports the article’s focus on peptide identity, compound characterization, and cautious literature interpretation rather than product-positioning claims.
Selected publications:
Author profile: University of Alabama at Birmingham Scholars Profile
Stuart J. Frank’s publications are relevant to the receptor pathway research discussed in this HGH product-page guide. His work on growth hormone receptor signaling provides background for understanding how published literature describes receptor-linked pathway models, JAK-associated signaling, and molecular interpretation in endocrine research. That literature helps support a documentation-focused approach in which pathway context is treated as scientific background for RUO materials, not as a product claim or product-use framework.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how this page handles published literature and search language around HGH. In endocrine growth hormone research content, terms such as Humatrope, growth disorders, growth hormone deficiency, HGH deficiency, hormone replacement therapy, growth hormone therapy, and prescription drugs can drift into medical-care or therapeutic positioning when framed as product claims rather than literature context. Search phrases such as HGH for sale, HGH online, online pharmacy, healthy levels, testosterone, and muscle growth can also shift the page away from research procurement if they are presented as commercial or consumer-facing outcomes.
Here, those phrases are handled only as research-language examples that require separation from product positioning, not as intended applications, outcomes, instructions, or recommendations. This page keeps the focus on HGH identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, RUO labeling, product documentation, and published literature boundaries. Any discussion of model-specific research context should support documentation review and compound characterization rather than clinical-use positioning, wellness claims, or product-performance claims.
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.