$54.99
Research Studies:
In stock (can be backordered)
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.
Ovagen 20mg 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.
Ovagen 20mg 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. | 147732-56-7 |
|---|---|
| Molecular Formula | Protein fragment complex (Exact molecular formula varies) |
| Molecular Weight | Approx. 3000–5000 Da (varies by batch) |
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Sequence | Tyr-Leu-Arg-Ile-Val-Gln-Cys-Arg-Ser-Val-Glu-Gly-Ser-Cys-Gly-Phe |
| Synthesis Method | Solid-phase synthesis |
| Format | Lyophilized powder |
| Solubility | Water/Sterile Diluent |
| Stability & Storage | Up to 24 months at -20°C. Avoid repeated freeze-thaw cycles. |
| Applications | Ovarian function studies, hormonal balance research, reproductive health exploration |
| Appearance | White to off-white powder |
| Regulatory/Compliance | Not for human consumption. For research use only. |
| Safety Information | MSDS available upon request |
Consider these supplementary peptides for a comprehensive research approach.
For research buyers comparing where to buy Ovagen for research, the first question is documentation, not outcome language. This Pure Lab Peptides guide frames Ovagen as a research peptide within a bioregulator peptide research lane, with emphasis on compound identity, analytical testing, COA review, lot traceability, and RUO positioning. The goal is to help laboratory teams evaluate the product-page record without implying human, animal, clinical, therapeutic, wellness, cosmetic, or personal-use intent.
Researchers should buy Ovagen for research only after reviewing RUO labeling, compound identity, batch-specific COA documentation, purity testing, LC-MS or comparable identity verification, lot traceability, and storage records. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. Product-page language should remain tied to documentation, not outcomes.
The original commercial search phrase is safest when reframed as buy Ovagen for research. That wording keeps the page aligned with technical procurement, supplier documentation, and laboratory research review rather than consumer buying intent.
For this product-page guide, “buy” means evaluate a research material listing. The article should help technical procurement teams check identity records, certificates of analysis, labeling consistency, and research-use-only boundaries before selecting a compound for research purposes.
The first documents to review are the product listing, the certificate of analysis, and any batch-specific analytical records. For peptide research materials, HPLC is commonly used to separate and evaluate peptide purity, while LC-MS and mass spectrometry can support identity and impurity characterization [11] [12].
A strong documentation set should show the same compound name, sequence identity, lot number, and test record across the listing, label, COA, and batch file. If those elements do not align, the record should be clarified before procurement.
RUO labeling protects the research frame. FDA guidance for RUO and IUO in vitro diagnostic products explains that RUO labeling is tied to research-phase context and must remain consistent with intended research positioning [20].
Although this article is not about IVD products, the same documentation principle applies editorially: labeling, product copy, and supporting records should not imply diagnostic, clinical, therapeutic, consumer, or personal-use positioning.
Ovagen should be presented as a research peptide listing, not as a wellness product or clinical product. In this guide, the canonical identity is the Glu-Asp-Leu sequence, also abbreviated EDL, which ChEBI classifies as a tripeptide [1].
The bioregulator lane matters because it shapes the research vocabulary. Safe language includes peptide identity, short peptides, tripeptide classification, amino acid sequence, molecular weight, published literature, and analytical verification.
For this product page, Ovagen is treated as an Ovagen peptide research material associated with the Glu-Asp-Leu identity. PubChem indexes glutamyl-aspartyl-leucine as CID 444128 with the molecular formula C15H25N3O8 [2].
Because product names can be used differently across commercial and literature contexts, the safer editorial approach is to anchor the page to verifiable identity fields. Those fields include sequence, formula, molar mass, analytical test records, and batch-specific documentation.
“Peptide bioregulator” should be used as a research classification, not as a claim about outcomes. Published short peptide literature from Vladimir Khavinson and collaborators has examined short peptides, DNA-peptide interaction models, gene-expression models, and molecular simulation frameworks [5] [6].
That literature can support background context. It should not be converted into product-positioning claims for any RUO compound for research.
The key sequence signal for this page is Glu-Asp-Leu, also written EDL. ChEBI identifies its IUPAC name as L-alpha-glutamyl-L-alpha-aspartyl-L-leucine and lists E-D-L and EDL as synonyms [1].
Sequence review is important because short peptides with 3 amino acids can be difficult to distinguish by product name alone. Researchers should compare the amino acid sequence, formula, and mass across the product listing, COA, and any analytical reports.
The liver and gastrointestinal tract context should be framed as a research model lane. A safe article can discuss hepatic models, intestinal epithelial models, cellular signaling, metabolism-related assays, and tissue-model limitations without implying that the research compound changes biological outcomes in a product-use setting.
In vitro liver models are used to study isolated organ components under controlled, reproducible conditions, and liver model literature discusses hepatocytes, biliary epithelial cells, immune cells, and metabolic readouts [8]. Intestinal model literature likewise covers epithelial barrier models, 2D and 3D systems, and microphysiological systems used in controlled research settings [9] [10].
The phrase “liver and gastrointestinal” should be kept within model scope. It can point to hepatic tissue research, epithelial cell context, GI tract model systems, or published literature categories.
It should not become a claim that an Ovagen product changes the function of liver and gastrointestinal systems. RUO product pages should describe what researchers examine, not what a product does outside the laboratory record.
The safe framing is model-specific: researchers may examine markers, pathways, expression data, or experimental parameters in liver and gastrointestinal tract models. Literature on liver in vitro models highlights the importance of controlled variables, organotypic characteristics, and model limitations [8].
Phrases such as “normalizes the function of liver” can drift into product-claim language if used as a product statement. On an RUO page, that concept should be rewritten as “research literature discussing function-related markers in model systems.”
A canonical product page should help qualified research buyers evaluate a compound for research without creating consumer intent. That means the page should prioritize documentation, product identity, verified purity, and research-use-only status.
For Ovagen, the listing should stay compound-focused. Catalog attributes, including a 20mg listing reference where present, are inventory specifications rather than research instructions.
A research material listing is clearer when it includes the compound name, sequence, molecular formula, molecular weight, form, lot number policy, COA availability, and RUO statement. General laboratory reagent labeling rules under 21 CFR 809.10 include identity, quantity or concentration, purity and quality information, and laboratory-use statements for general-purpose reagents [19].
For peptide pages, the same editorial logic supports a tighter product record. The page should make it easy to compare the product listing with batch-specific records.
Every scientific statement about the Ovagen peptide should point back to either a database field, a peer-reviewed source, or a product documentation field. For example, EDL identity belongs in compound identity documentation, while HPLC and LC-MS belong in analytical testing documentation [1] [11] [12].
Statements should avoid overstating what a product can do. A product page can say what the COA reports; it should not turn model literature into product performance.
Short peptide research includes chemical identity, sequence recognition, molecular interaction models, and analytical characterization. Khavinson’s 2016 paper describes short peptides as signal-molecule models and discusses DNA-peptide complex modeling, while also stating that the molecular mechanism remains unclear [5].
That uncertainty is important. Research pages should acknowledge that short peptide literature can provide context while still requiring careful interpretation, source quality review, and product-level documentation.
Vladimir Khavinson appears frequently in short peptide and bioregulator literature. A systematic review by Khavinson and coauthors discusses peptide regulation of gene expression and describes short peptides of 2–7 amino acid residues in gene-expression research contexts [6].
For RUO copy, the author and literature context can be mentioned as background. The product page should not claim that a Pure Lab Peptides research material reproduces any literature finding.
Molecular weight and molar mass support documentation review because they give researchers a fixed identity field to compare across databases, COAs, and analytical records. ChEBI lists Glu-Asp-Leu with an average mass of 375.378 and monoisotopic mass of 375.16416 [1].
Sequence verification should be tied to analytical evidence. A COA that reports purity without identity support is less complete than a record that includes both purity and identity verification.
Published literature directly indexed to “Ovagen” can be limited, so a safer article should distinguish between compound identity, short peptide literature, and same-sequence structural records. The NCBI MMDB record 1A30 identifies a crystal structure of HIV-1 protease complexed with a tripeptide listed as Glu-asp-leu [3].
That structural context is not an RUO product claim. It is an example of how the same peptide sequence can appear in scientific databases and model-specific research.
Published literature can support claims about what researchers studied, what methods were used, and what model-specific findings were reported. Velazquez-Campoy and colleagues reported thermodynamic binding work involving Glu-Asp-Leu and HIV-1 protease in a structure-informed research context [4].
The same literature cannot support consumer-facing claims for a research-use-only product. The evidence category must stay separate from product positioning.
Literature context describes research questions. Product positioning describes what a supplier is offering.
For RUO pages, that difference matters. A peer-reviewed paper, database entry, or analytical method source can inform compound identity and research background, but it does not convert a product page into a clinical-use, therapeutic-use, or consumer-use guide.
A research buyer should read the literature through an evidence ladder: database identity, analytical chemistry, in vitro or structural models, preclinical model literature, and literature that falls outside RUO product positioning. Each level answers a different question.
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | Glu-Asp-Leu as a tripeptide with formula and mass fields [1] [2] | Database | Supports identity review, not product claims |
| Structural records | Glu-Asp-Leu in a protein-complex structure record [3] | Structural database | Useful for same-sequence context only |
| Binding-model literature | Thermodynamic research involving Glu-Asp-Leu and HIV-1 protease [4] | Peer-reviewed study | Model-specific finding, not product positioning |
| Short peptide research | Gene-expression and DNA-peptide interaction models [5] [6] [7] | Review and model literature | Background context with limitations |
| Liver and GI models | In vitro liver and intestinal epithelial model systems [8] [9] [10] | Model literature | Supports research-lane context |
| Analytical documentation | HPLC, LC-MS, and MS methods for peptide review [11] [12] [13] [14] | Analytical chemistry | Supports purity and identity documentation |
A practical source filter starts with official databases, peer-reviewed literature, analytical chemistry sources, and official regulatory or standards documents. PubChem, ChEBI, NCBI, FDA, USP, and peer-reviewed journals are stronger sources than vendor descriptions or unsourced marketing pages [1] [2] [16] [22].
For Ovagen, the strongest page content should come from identity fields, method records, and verifiable documentation. Marketing-style claims should not be used as evidence.
Experimental design determines what a study can and cannot show. In vitro models are built to control variables and isolate model components, but they also have limitations in how closely they represent more complex biology [8] [9].
A product page should not flatten those limits. It should identify model type, source quality, measurement method, and relevance to research documentation.
Claim boundaries keep an RUO product page from drifting into unsupported statements. This is especially important when competitor-derived keywords, search snippets, or outside literature phrases imply product effects or product performance.
The safer editorial pattern is simple: discuss what literature examines, then return to documentation. COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and RUO labeling should remain the center of the page.
Search intent can move from technical procurement into consumer-facing language quickly. For example, a phrase like “sublingual drops” is format-focused language that should not define this RUO product-page position.
The article should answer commercial research intent without adopting consumer framing. “Buy Ovagen for research” is acceptable; standalone buying language or practical-use claims are not.
Pathway relevance only means a pathway, model, or literature category may be relevant to research interpretation. It does not mean the product produces a particular biological outcome.
That distinction is central to RUO writing. Literature can discuss cell signaling, gene expression, hepatocyte models, epithelial models, or metabolism-related readouts, but a product page should not present those topics as product effects.
Product-page copy should emphasize documentation. The safest content pillars are identity, peptide purity, certificates of analysis, analytical testing, lot traceability, label consistency, and research-use-only positioning.
When scientific background is included, it should be cited and bounded. Study findings should stay tied to model conditions and should not become product claims.
A COA is one of the most important records for research procurement. It should connect a specific lot to identity, purity, analytical method, date, and laboratory source.
FDA analytical-method guidance describes validation principles for analytical procedures, including assay, purity, impurity, identity, and other qualitative or quantitative measurements [16]. That makes method clarity central to peptide documentation review.
Certificates of analysis fit between product listing review and procurement approval. They help research buyers verify whether the product’s identity and purity claims are supported by batch-specific analytical records.
USP reference standards are used to demonstrate identity, purity, and quality in compendial contexts, which supports the broader principle that reference materials and analytical records should be well characterized [22]. For RUO materials, a COA should not be treated as marketing copy; it is a technical record.
Research buyers should compare compound name, lot number, COA date, test method, reported purity, identity method, observed mass where available, and issuing laboratory. FDA guidance on analytical procedures and validation emphasizes method suitability, specificity, accuracy, precision, and documented analytical performance [16] [17].
COA records are strongest when they are batch-specific. A generic COA cannot provide the same traceability as a lot-matched report.
Batch-specific documentation links the tested material to the research material listing. FDA Q3A impurity guidance for new drug substances describes batch reports as including batch identity, manufacturing date, impurity content, and references to analytical procedures, which is useful as a general documentation principle [18].
For an Ovagen peptide vial, the practical question is whether the label, COA, and analytical file describe the same lot. If they do not, the documentation chain is incomplete.
Verified purity is not just a percentage. It depends on method, sample, batch, chromatographic conditions, and whether identity testing supports the same material record.
HPLC can help evaluate peptide purity by separating peptide components, while LC-MS can support identity and impurity characterization through mass-based analysis [11] [12]. These methods are complementary, not interchangeable.
A documentation-only lab-test verification workflow can remain RUO-safe:
HPLC supports peptide purity review by separating components and producing chromatographic records that can show the main peak and related impurities under defined method conditions. Mant and colleagues describe major HPLC modes used for peptide analysis and purification, including reversed-phase, ion-exchange, and size-exclusion approaches [11].
For product-page documentation, the key issue is not simply whether “HPLC” appears. The COA should show enough method context to help a laboratory team understand what the reported purity value represents.
LC-MS supports identity verification by pairing liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry. In peptide analysis, LC-MS workflows can help characterize synthetic peptide impurities and support molecular identity review [12] [13].
For Ovagen, LC-MS is most useful when it is tied to the lot being evaluated. A mass record that does not match the lot record is less useful for procurement review.
Mass spectrometry can help evaluate peptide authenticity and integrity when the expected sequence and molecular mass are known. Prabhala and colleagues describe MS as well suited for identity and purity analysis of synthetic peptides [14].
Structural integrity still requires careful interpretation. A mass match can support identity review, but it should be considered alongside chromatographic data, sequence expectations, COA fields, and batch records.
Lot traceability helps laboratory teams connect the physical research material to records. FDA describes a traceability lot code as a descriptor, often alphanumeric, used to uniquely identify a traceability lot within records [21].
For peptide procurement, the same recordkeeping principle is useful. The lot number should connect the peptide vial, COA, product-page documentation, and internal laboratory record.
Lot numbers matter because research reproducibility depends on knowing which material was evaluated. A lot-specific record allows teams to connect observations, storage conditions, and analytical documentation to the same batch.
Without lot alignment, research teams may be comparing a product listing to a record that belongs to a different material. That weakens the documentation chain.
COAs connect to batch records through lot number, product identity, test method, test date, and reported results. USP’s general notices emphasize identity, strength, quality, and purity in compendial contexts, supporting the wider documentation principle that material attributes need clear standards and records [23].
For RUO peptide pages, the COA should not stand alone. It should match the label and the procurement file.
Labeling and storage records keep the research material identifiable after procurement. The peptide vial label should support the same identity chain as the product page and COA.
Storage documentation also matters because peptide stability depends on sequence, formulation, moisture, temperature, and other handling variables. Reviews of peptide stability describe intrinsic and external factors that can influence physical stability and degradation behavior [24].
A peptide vial label should confirm the compound name, lot number, catalog reference if present, RUO status, and quantity as a listing attribute. It should not imply clinical or consumer positioning.
The label should also avoid claims. For a research compound, the label is part of the documentation chain, not an outcome statement.
A lyophilized peptide form can support storage documentation because freeze drying is commonly used to improve stability of sensitive biological and pharmaceutical materials, though stability still depends on formulation and storage conditions [26].
For Ovagen documentation, “lyophilized” should be treated as a material-form descriptor. It should be paired with storage records, COA details, and laboratory handling documentation.
Several misunderstandings can weaken a research-use-only product page:
These distinctions protect the page from unsupported claims and keep the focus on laboratory research.
Research context describes what a model examines. Outcome language presents a product as producing an effect.
For Ovagen, safe writing keeps liver and gastrointestinal tract context tied to research models, literature categories, and documentation. It does not state that the product changes liver and GI tract function.
Regulatory references should be factual and narrow. For example, 21 CFR 809.10 includes RUO labeling language for certain IVD products, and FDA’s RUO/IUO guidance explains the agency’s thinking for that category [19] [20].
A Pure Lab Peptides RUO peptide page should not imply approval, certification, or endorsement by the Food and Drug Administration. Regulatory references should clarify boundaries, not create claims.
Before researchers buy Ovagen for research, the procurement review should focus on documentation. The strongest product-page experience helps buyers answer one question: do the identity, COA, analytical records, lot number, and RUO label tell the same story?
A practical checklist:
Teams should compare the listing, label, COA, analytical report, and supplier documentation. FDA and ICH analytical guidance emphasizes that analytical procedures should be scientifically justified and validated according to their purpose, which supports careful review of method claims [16] [17].
For a high-purity peptide listing, the record should not rely on a claim alone. It should provide method-based documentation.
Verified purity supports procurement review when the percentage is tied to a method and a lot. HPLC can support purity review, while LC-MS or MS can support identity review [11] [12] [14].
The strongest procurement decision is documentation-based. Purity, identity, lot traceability, and RUO labeling should all align.
Related products should be handled as same-lane research materials, not as consumer alternatives. For bioregulator peptide research, related products may be grouped by short peptide identity, sequence documentation, analytical testing requirements, or published literature limitations.
Internal linking can support research navigation when it points to COA review, peptide purity testing, RUO policy, and same-lane research pages. It should not use anchor text that implies outcomes or personal-use intent.
The next-step evaluation path is straightforward: verify identity, review COA records, compare analytical methods, confirm lot traceability, and check RUO labeling. If related products are reviewed, apply the same standard to each page.
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 Ovagen is intended solely for laboratory research contexts. It is not designed for human or animal consumption, diagnostic purposes, or therapeutic applications. Researchers should focus on compound identity, analytical testing, and documentation rather than any application outside controlled laboratory evaluation.
Researchers should evaluate Ovagen documentation, including batch-specific certificates of analysis (COAs), lot traceability, and analytical testing results. Reviewing HPLC or LC-MS data ensures peptide identity and purity align with research objectives. Procurement decisions should rely on these documentation standards rather than any intended-use or consumer-focused claims.
Researchers review COAs for Ovagen to confirm batch-specific documentation of peptide identity, purity, and analytical testing. COAs provide transparency regarding lot traceability and verify that the product meets research-use-only standards. This ensures consistent laboratory-grade material across experimental models.
Analytical methods such as HPLC and LC-MS are commonly applied to evaluate Ovagen purity. HPLC helps assess peptide composition and homogeneity, while LC-MS supports identity confirmation through molecular weight and mass-to-charge ratio analysis. These methods are central to RUO verification processes and documentation review.
Published literature should be interpreted as research context only and not as product-use guidance. Studies describing Ovagen or similar peptides may reference in vitro assays or preclinical models. Findings should remain separate from laboratory procurement and compound documentation, maintaining RUO boundaries.
Ovagen product pages should separate consumer-facing, wellness, or administration language from research documentation. Terms such as nootropic, cognitive enhancement, and peptide therapy can drift into claims if misused. Pages should emphasize compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and RUO labeling to maintain compliance.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: PubMed Author Profile
Vladimir Khavinson is a research author whose work appears in multiple peer‑reviewed publications examining short peptides, epigenetic regulation, and gene expression modulation. His publications provide foundational context for understanding how short peptides can interact with molecular targets and influence signaling and expression pathways in controlled laboratory settings. While the precise mechanisms remain an active area of investigation, his studies contribute to the broader literature on peptide regulation of gene expression and cellular processes.
Selected publications:
Author profile: PubMed Author Profile
Colin T. Mant is an author whose publications focus on analytical methods relevant to peptide research, including chromatographic separation and characterization techniques. Mant’s contributions to HPLC methodology and peptide analysis underpin key validation and purity assessment practices used in laboratory research to characterize peptide materials. These analytical frameworks support documentation and quality assessment approaches discussed in this product‑page context.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how this page handles published literature and search language around Ovagen. In bioregulator peptide research content, terms such as nootropic, cognitive enhancement, mental clarity, brain health, nasal spray, peptide therapy, effects of Ovagen, efficacy of Ovagen, absorption, bioavailability, and clinical outcomes can drift into consumer-facing, administration-focused, wellness, clinical-use, therapeutic language, or product-claim language when framed incorrectly.
Here, those phrases are handled only as research-language examples, not product uses, outcomes, instructions, or recommendations. The page’s focus remains on Ovagen identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, research-use-only labeling, product documentation, compound characterization, research documentation, and published literature boundaries for model-specific interpretation.
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.