$89.99
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.
IGF-1 LR3 1mg 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.
IGF-1 LR3 1mg 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. | 946870-92-4 |
|---|---|
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Sequence | MFPAMPLSSLFVNAGPVCGLRIFYNNKQYWNKPTGYGSSIRRAPQTGIVDCCFRSCDLRRLEMYCAPLKPAKSA |
| Molecular Formula | C331H519N109O101 |
| Molecular Weight | 9117.60 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 | Cell growth and differentiation studies, muscle development and aging research, therapeutic research in muscle wasting and metabolic disorders |
| 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.
Researchers who buy IGF-1 LR3 for research are usually evaluating compound identity, analytical documentation, and RUO labeling rather than consumer-facing claims. IGF-1 LR3 is commonly indexed as Long R3 IGF-I in scientific and database contexts, and published literature treats it as a modified insulin-like growth factor I analog for model-specific investigation [1], [5], [6]. This Pure Lab Peptides guide explains how to review peptide COA records, identity testing, literature context, and procurement documentation while keeping the page strictly research-use-only.
To buy IGF-1 LR3 for research safely in an RUO context, researchers should first review the compound name, RUO label, batch-specific COA, purity method, identity testing, lot number, storage documentation, and supplier records. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. Literature should guide research context, not product claims.
Commercial research intent is different from consumer purchase intent. A research-focused product page should answer whether the peptide identity, COA, analytical method, lot traceability, and product details are clear enough for a laboratory procurement review.
For IGF-1 LR3, the safe search intent is documentation-led: researchers are not looking for claims about personal outcomes. They are evaluating whether a research material is identified, labeled, and documented in a way that fits laboratory research use.
Start with the label, product name, lot number, and certificate of analysis. Those records should align with the product-page name, the supplier listing, and any batch-specific documentation.
The COA should state what was tested, which method was used, and whether the tested lot matches the material under review. Analytical guidance from FDA and ICH emphasizes that procedures supporting identity, quality, purity, and related attributes should be defined and documented [22], [23].
RUO labeling sets the boundary for how a research material is positioned. FDA guidance on RUO and IUO labeling explains that research labeling is tied to the research phase and should not be represented as diagnostic positioning [20], [21].
For a peptide product page, that means the first screen of review should confirm research-use-only language, not promotional phrasing. Documentation should come before any interpretation of literature.
IGF-1 LR3 is a peptide research compound commonly associated with Long R3 IGF-I terminology. PubChem includes a substance record for Long-(arg3)insulin-like growth factor-i, and PubMed-indexed literature discusses Long R3 IGF-I variants in relation to IGF-binding protein and receptor-context studies [1], [5], [6].
IGF-1 LR3 belongs in the insulin-like growth factor research lane. The IGF1 gene encodes insulin-like growth factor 1, a protein related to insulin in structure and function, according to NCBI Gene [2].
UniProt identifies IGF1 as insulin-like growth factor 1, and the mature IGF-I protein has been historically characterized as a 70-amino-acid single-chain polypeptide [3], [4]. IGF-1 LR3 documentation should therefore keep native IGF-1 context separate from LR3-specific analog terminology.
The LR3 label points to Long R3 IGF-I terminology, not a separate consumer category. Literature describing IGF-I variants notes an arginine-related position 3 substitution and a Long IGF-I N-terminal extension concept in the same research family [5], [6].
For product-page documentation, that means the name should be consistent across the listing, COA, and any identity records. Native IGF-1 literature can support background context, but it should not replace LR3-specific identity review.
IGF1, IGF-I, insulin-like growth factor I, and insulin-like growth factor 1 are overlapping terms used across databases and literature. NCBI Gene lists IGF1 as the official symbol for the gene encoding insulin-like growth factor 1 [2].
Product details should avoid mixing gene, protein, and analog terms loosely. A strong product page makes clear when it is discussing IGF1 background, native IGF-1, or IGF-1 LR3 peptide documentation.
Insulin-like growth factor 1 context helps explain why the page belongs in growth factor and receptor pathway research. It does not create a product claim.
The IGF system includes ligands, receptors, and binding proteins that have been reviewed in endocrine and molecular biology literature [11], [13], [14]. That context is useful for entity coverage, literature review, and documentation language.
Naming consistency matters because IGF-1, IGF-I, IGF1, and insulin like growth factor 1 can appear in different databases or studies. A product page should choose a canonical compound name while explaining related scientific synonyms when needed.
For IGF-1 LR3, the canonical product-page target is the LR3 peptide. Related naming should support clarity, not keyword stuffing.
Growth factors are signaling molecules studied across receptor, binding protein, and pathway models. Reviews of the IGF system describe IGF ligands, IGF receptors, and IGF-binding proteins as connected parts of a larger signaling framework [13], [14], [16].
For RUO product pages, the safest role for this language is educational. It helps researchers place IGF-1 LR3 in a scientific lane without implying product effects.
Long Arg3 language should be handled as compound-identity terminology. Literature on Long R3 IGF-I variants describes structural changes involving position 3 and N-terminal extension concepts [5], [6].
The product page should not over-explain sequence details unless those details are verified in the supplier’s documentation. The practical procurement question is whether the product name, COA, and identity data agree.
Receptor and signal context matters because IGF-family literature often discusses ligand binding, receptor activity, and downstream pathway models. IGF1R is a receptor tyrosine kinase target in official database and review sources [7], [8], [9].
NCBI Gene identifies IGF1R as insulin like growth factor 1 receptor, while UniProt identifies the reviewed human IGF1R protein as insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor [7], [8]. Structural literature describes the type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor as a key receptor in IGF pathway study [9].
For laboratory research pages, IGF-1 receptor context should support literature interpretation. It should not describe intended product outcomes.
IGF1R literature commonly discusses signaling routes such as PI3K-AKT and RAS-MAPK pathways [11], [12]. Those pathways belong in research context only.
A safe product page should say that published literature examines receptor-linked pathway models. It should not imply that the listed peptide produces a claimed outcome.
A pathway reference is a map, not a claim. Researchers can use receptor and signal context to understand why a compound appears in the literature, but product positioning should remain focused on identity, COA, analytical testing, and lot traceability.
This boundary matters because product effects or product performance language can become claim-heavy when separated from model-specific literature. RUO pages should keep the focus on documentation.
Published literature can help researchers understand how IGF-1 LR3 and related IGF-I analogs have been studied. The evidence base includes database records, structural descriptions, receptor-binding context, binding-protein literature, and model-specific studies [1], [5], [6], [10].
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | Long R3 IGF-I naming, analog design, and variant terminology [1], [5], [6] | Database and peer-reviewed literature | Supports identity context; does not replace batch-specific testing. |
| Receptor context | IGF1R structure, ligand binding, and receptor-family signaling [8], [9], [10] | Official database, structural review, mechanistic literature | Supports pathway framing; does not create product claims. |
| Binding proteins | IGF-binding proteins and their role in regulating ligand availability [14], [15], [16] | Review literature | Helps explain why analog language appears in the literature. |
| Cell-model literature | Model-specific studies using IGF-I or Long R3 IGF-I in controlled research systems [17], [18], [19] | In vitro and preclinical research | Findings remain model-specific and should not be converted into product positioning. |
| Analytical review | HPLC, LC-MS, and mass spectrometry for peptide purity and identity support [25], [26], [27], [28] | Analytical chemistry literature | Supports COA review and documentation checks. |
Research studies can establish how a compound, analog, receptor, or pathway behaves under defined model conditions. They can also show how researchers frame limitations, controls, and assay conditions.
They cannot establish product-page claims for RUO materials. For IGF-1 LR3, the safer interpretation is to treat studies as literature context and rely on COA and analytical documentation for product review.
Some IGF-I and Long R3 IGF-I literature appears in preclinical or cell-model settings [17], [18], [19]. These models can help researchers understand how the compound class is studied, but their findings remain tied to the specific model, assay, and study design.
A product page should not generalize those findings into consumer outcomes. The article should keep evidence interpretation separate from supplier documentation.
A strong source-quality filter begins with official databases, peer-reviewed literature, and recognized analytical guidance. PubChem, NCBI Gene, UniProt, FDA guidance, ICH guidelines, and PubMed-indexed sources provide stronger support than unsourced marketing pages [1], [2], [3], [20], [22], [23].
Researchers should also check whether a source is about the exact compound, a related native protein, or a broader pathway. That distinction helps prevent overreach.
The key research boundary is simple: literature context is not product positioning. Published findings can explain why a compound appears in scientific research, but they should not be converted into claims for a research material.
Search intent can drift when commercial language is paired with outcome-focused phrasing. For IGF-1 LR3, safe commercial research intent should stay anchored to compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, and procurement documentation.
A product page can answer what researchers should review before procurement. It should not answer consumer-outcome questions.
Scientific literature often evaluates mechanisms, receptors, and controlled model systems. Product positioning for RUO materials should stay narrower: what the material is, how it is labeled, what documentation is available, and how the COA supports identity and purity review.
This separation protects the integrity of the page. It also keeps the article aligned with research-use-only expectations.
Product-page copy should emphasize product details, batch-specific records, COA availability, peptide purity, identity verification, labeling consistency, and lot traceability. It can also summarize literature boundaries in a neutral way.
For Pure Lab Peptides, the practical emphasis is documentation-first review. That is the safest way to serve commercial research intent.
COA documentation matters because it connects the listed peptide to a specific tested batch. A COA can support review of identity, purity, lot number, date, and testing method when those details are present.
FDA analytical guidance discusses documentation of identity, quality, purity, and related attributes in method validation contexts [22]. ICH Q2(R2) adds a framework for evaluating analytical procedures and validation characteristics [23].
A certificate of analysis should identify the compound, lot or batch number, test date, method, purity result, and identity support when available. For peptide materials, HPLC may support purity review, while LC-MS or mass spectrometry can support identity review [25], [26], [27].
The key is alignment. The COA should match the product page and label.
Certificates of analysis support batch review by giving the procurement team a document tied to a specific lot. Without that connection, a purity statement is less useful for research documentation.
Batch review should also consider whether the method is named clearly. Analytical method development and validation guidance from ICH emphasizes defined procedure purpose and suitable analytical performance characteristics [23], [24].
COAs fit near the beginning of research procurement. They should be reviewed before literature interpretation, since literature does not prove the identity of a supplied lot.
A procurement file should store the COA, label image or label data, product-page details, and storage documentation. This creates an audit-friendly record for laboratory settings.
Analytical testing can support identity, purity, and impurity-profile review depending on the method used. HPLC is widely used in peptide analysis and purification contexts, while LC-MS and mass spectrometry support peptide identification and mass-based characterization [25], [26], [27], [28].
A documentation-focused lab-test verification sequence can include:
HPLC can separate peptide-related components and is commonly used in peptide analysis workflows [25]. In a COA context, HPLC data may support purity review when the method, chromatogram, and batch connection are clear.
HPLC alone should not be treated as complete identity confirmation. It is one part of a larger documentation package.
LC-MS combines liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry, allowing researchers to connect chromatographic separation with mass-based information [27], [28]. For peptide review, that combination can support identity assessment when appropriate reference information and batch records are present.
The most useful COA tells the reader which method was used and how the result connects to the listed lot. Vague testing statements are weaker than method-specific documentation.
Mass spectrometry is widely used for peptide and protein identification because peptide mass and fragmentation information can support sequence-related analysis [26]. NIST also maintains peptide mass spectral library resources that demonstrate the role of reference data in mass spectral identification [30].
For procurement, mass spectrometry is most useful when paired with clear lot records and a batch-specific COA. The method strengthens documentation only when the paperwork is traceable.
Lot traceability connects a product listing to a specific batch, COA, test date, and label. Without that connection, documentation becomes generic.
For research buyers, traceability is not a bonus detail. It is part of the evidence chain.
Batch-specific records should connect the compound name, lot number, COA, purity method, identity method, product details, and storage documentation. The same lot identifier should appear consistently across the record set.
If one document uses IGF-1 LR3 and another uses Long R3 IGF-I, the page should make the relationship clear. Synonym clarity helps prevent documentation confusion.
A lot number gives the procurement team a way to tie the COA to the actual research material. A COA date helps show when analytical review occurred.
Record alignment also matters for archiving. A future reviewer should be able to see why a laboratory selected a specific lot and which documents supported that decision.
Researchers should review product details for identity, label clarity, lot traceability, purity method, identity testing, and storage documentation. Product details should also keep RUO positioning visible.
For IGF-1 LR3, product-page details should support the canonical compound target. They should not split the page into strength-specific or catalog-amount SEO targets.
The compound name should be consistent across the product listing, label, COA, and documentation file. If synonyms appear, the page should clarify their scientific relationship.
Listing consistency is especially important for IGF-1 LR3 because IGF1, IGF-I, native IGF-1, and Long R3 IGF-I terminology can appear across different sources [1], [2], [3], [6].
Storage documentation should identify the storage condition stated by the supplier for the specific material. Lyophilized peptide materials are often documented with storage and handling notes, and those notes should be preserved in the laboratory record.
The safest product-page approach is to state that researchers should follow the supplier’s batch and label documentation. Product pages should not substitute general statements for product-specific records.
Supplier evaluation for IGF-1 LR3 should be documentation-led. Research buyers should compare whether each supplier provides clear RUO language, COA availability, method details, lot traceability, and product-page consistency.
The strongest supplier page makes review easier. It does not rely on unsupported claims.
Researchers should compare:
Good documentation signals include a clear product name, visible RUO positioning, accessible COA records, named analytical methods, lot-level traceability, and storage details. These signals make the product page more useful to technical procurement teams.
Weak signals include vague purity statements, unclear lot connections, missing method names, or copy that tries to turn literature into promotional positioning.
IGF-1 LR3 product pages can become confusing when literature context, analog terminology, and procurement language are blended together. The safer approach is to separate each layer.
Common misunderstandings include:
Analog language should describe compound identity, not promise a research outcome. IGF-1 LR3 is best handled as a peptide research compound in the IGF-I analog literature lane.
Classification precision matters for SEO too. Clear naming supports search visibility without relying on unsafe modifiers.
Reference sequence terminology should stay tied to databases, peer-reviewed literature, and supplier documentation. Native IGF-1 sequence facts should be cited to sources such as UniProt and classic sequence literature, while LR3-specific terminology should be supported by sources discussing Long R3 IGF-I [3], [4], [5], [6].
The page should avoid presenting unverified sequence details as product facts. If sequence data appear in a supplier document, the COA or technical file should be the source of record.
A procurement checklist should help researchers decide whether the documentation is complete enough for internal review. It should not tell anyone what to do with the material beyond lawful laboratory handling.
For teams evaluating where to buy IGF-1 LR3 for research, the core checklist is document consistency.
Use this documentation checklist before selecting an IGF-1 LR3 research material:
Literature review belongs beside, not above, product documentation. Peer-reviewed sources explain the research lane; COA and testing records support the batch-specific review.
Storage documentation should be captured from the product page, label, or supplier technical record. This keeps laboratory records tied to the actual material selected.
The next step is to review the product-page documentation, COA details, analytical method notes, lot traceability, and RUO labeling before evaluating this compound for laboratory research. A well-documented procurement file should make the identity and testing record easy to follow.
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.
After product details review, research teams should archive the COA, label details, testing method notes, and lot-specific records. They should also keep literature notes separate from product documentation.
Explore Pure Lab Peptides for RUO peptide compounds with research-focused product information and available documentation. For research teams comparing peptide suppliers, prioritize COA availability, transparent labeling, and lot-level documentation.
Research use only means IGF-1 LR3 is framed solely as a laboratory research material. In a product-page context, that keeps the focus on compound identity, RUO labeling, COA records, analytical testing, lot traceability, and supplier documentation. It also separates published literature from product positioning.
Researchers should consider documentation before they buy IGF-1 LR3 for research. The main review points are the product name, RUO label, batch-specific COA, purity method, identity testing, lot number, and storage documentation. Strong procurement review checks whether those records align across the product listing and supplier documentation.
Researchers review COA documentation for IGF-1 LR3 because it connects a listed research peptide to a specific batch. A useful COA can support review of compound name, lot number, purity method, test date, and identity information. COA review works best when paired with lot traceability and consistent product details.
Analytical testing supports IGF-1 LR3 peptide identity review by adding method-specific evidence to the documentation file. HPLC is commonly used for peptide purity review, while LC-MS and mass spectrometry can support identity assessment when paired with batch records and suitable reference data [25], [26], [27]. These methods support documentation review, not product claims.
Published literature about IGF-1 LR3 should be interpreted as research context. Literature may describe IGF-1 analogs, receptor models, cell signaling, or Long R3 terminology, but those findings should remain tied to the model and study design. They should not replace COA review, analytical testing, or batch-specific documentation.
Somatomedin, somatomedin C, and IGF-1R appear because they are part of the broader insulin-like growth factor research vocabulary. IGF1 is associated with insulin-like growth factor 1 records, and IGF1R refers to the insulin-like growth factor 1 receptor in database and literature contexts [2], [7], [8]. In FAQ copy, these terms should clarify research context only.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: Flinders University Profile
Briony E. Forbes is a published author in insulin-like growth factor receptor and binding-protein literature. Her work is relevant to the IGF-1 LR3 research article because it helps frame how insulin-like growth factors, IGF-binding proteins, and IGF-1R receptor pathway research are discussed as scientific context rather than supplier positioning. The selected publications below support the article’s background on ligand-receptor interactions, peptide-family terminology, and literature interpretation for Growth Factor and Receptor Pathway Research. This research lane also supports precise terminology around IGF1, IGF-I, and receptor-linked signaling models.
Selected publications:
Author profile: CU Anschutz Profile
Robert S. Hodges is a published author whose work is relevant to the analytical framework used in this article. His publications on HPLC analysis, peptide separation, and synthetic peptide characterization help support the documentation-first approach used for RUO research materials. In the IGF-1 LR3 context, that framework connects purity review, method-specific testing, peptide identity, and laboratory recordkeeping without overstating analytical data. The selected publications below are useful background for understanding why HPLC, method transparency, and batch-aligned records matter during research procurement. They also complement LC-MS and mass spectrometry discussions by keeping analytical review tied to documentation.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how this page handles published literature and search language around IGF-1 LR3. In Growth Factor and Receptor Pathway Research content, terms such as growth hormone, GH, hormone, cell growth, protein synthesis, hypertrophy, myostatin, uptake of glucose, wellness language, therapeutic language, and body-composition language can drift into product-claim language when framed outside model-specific research context.
Here, those phrases are handled only as research-language examples, not product uses, outcomes, instructions, recommendations, or positioning statements. The focus remains on IGF-1 LR3 compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, research-use-only labeling, product documentation, and published literature boundaries, with pathway discussion kept separate from commercial product 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.