$149.99
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.
SS-31 30mg 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.
SS-31 30mg 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. | 736992-21-5 |
|---|---|
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Sequence | D-Arg-dimethylTyr-Lys-Phe-NH₂ |
| Molecular Formula | C32H49N9O5 |
| Molecular Weight | 639.8 g/mol |
| Applications | Mitochondrial dysfunction studies, cardioprotection research, oxidative stress 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.
Researchers comparing where to buy SS-31 for research need a documentation-first view, not a consumer buying guide. SS-31, also known as elamipretide in scientific databases, is discussed in peptide and mitochondrial research literature as a synthetic tetrapeptide associated with cardiolipin and mitochondrial bioenergetics [1] [2] [3]. This Pure Lab Peptides guide keeps the focus on research-use-only labeling, COA review, analytical testing, literature interpretation, and technical procurement.
Researchers evaluating where to buy SS-31 for research should first review RUO labeling, compound identity, batch-specific COA, HPLC purity data, LC-MS identity support, and lot traceability. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. Scientific literature describes SS-31 as elamipretide/MTP-131, a mitochondrial research peptide [2] [3].
The search phrase “buy SS-31” becomes RUO-safe only when it is framed as technical procurement for qualified laboratory research. That means the page should help research buyers evaluate documentation, not imply consumer access, personal experimentation, or product outcomes.
For Pure Lab Peptides, the commercial research question is simple: does the product-page record give enough information to evaluate identity, purity, batch consistency, and research-use-only positioning?
The first documents to review are the product listing, certificate of analysis, analytical testing records, vial label, and lot-specific identifiers. FDA analytical guidance treats analytical procedure documentation as part of demonstrating identity, quality, purity, and related product-quality attributes in regulated settings; RUO procurement teams can borrow the same documentation mindset without treating the material as a clinical product [24] [29].
A strong SS-31 research material listing should make the compound name, synonym set, lot number, COA availability, and analytical method references easy to reconcile.
RUO labeling sets the intended context for the product page. It separates laboratory research procurement from consumer-facing language and keeps the focus on documentation, analytical verification, and responsible laboratory handling.
For SS-31, that boundary matters because academic literature includes mitochondrial, cellular, cardiovascular research, and human-study categories. Those literature categories do not change the intended status of an RUO research compound.
SS-31 is a short synthetic peptide also known as elamipretide and MTP-131 in scientific indexing systems [1] [2]. PubChem identifies elamipretide as C32H49N9O5, and peptide literature commonly describes it as a tetrapeptide sequence containing D-arginine, dimethyltyrosine, lysine, and phenylalanine amide [1] [3].
A tetrapeptide contains four amino acid residues. SS-31 is described in review literature as a tetrapeptide with the sequence D-Arg-Dmt-Lys-Phe-NH2, which is relevant for sequence confirmation, molecular identity review, and same-lane peptide research classification [3].
For documentation review, the key is consistency. “SS-31,” “peptide SS-31,” “elamipretide,” “MTP-131,” “SS31,” and “SS 31” should point to the same intended research compound across the product page, COA, and batch records.
Elamipretide and MTP-131 are literature and database synonyms associated with SS-31 [2]. These names appear in mechanistic research, mitochondrial bioenergetics literature, and official database indexing, so procurement teams should expect supplier documentation to reconcile them clearly [1] [2].
A mismatch between synonym, label, and COA can create ambiguity. A clean research record should reduce that ambiguity before any SS-31 research material is selected.
Sequence documentation helps confirm that the intended synthetic peptide corresponds to the compound described in literature and databases. For SS-31, sequence review is especially useful because modified residues and terminal amide notation can affect molecular identity records [3].
Sequence alone is not a complete verification package. It should be paired with molecular formula, molecular weight, analytical testing, lot traceability, and batch-specific COA documentation.
A product-page research guide should answer commercial research intent without turning literature into product claims. The safest product-page structure for SS-31 is compound identity first, then literature context, then COA and analytical verification.
Research purposes require neutral language. A page can explain that SS-31 is studied in mitochondrial research models, but it should not imply that a product is intended for clinical-use settings or consumer outcomes.
This is why documentation sections matter as much as scientific background. A research buyer needs to know what the material is, how it is labeled, and what records support batch identity.
A research material listing should communicate compound name, synonym consistency, lot number, COA availability, purity method, identity method, storage documentation, and RUO labeling. ISO/IEC 17025 emphasizes competent laboratory testing and valid results in testing and calibration contexts, which supports the value of clear test reports and traceable documentation for laboratory review [27].
For a vial-based research material, the label, COA, and product listing should tell the same story.
SS-31 belongs in a metabolic and mitochondrial research lane because published literature discusses its relationship with cardiolipin, the inner mitochondrial membrane, mitochondrial bioenergetics, and electron transport chain function [4] [5] [6] [7]. Mitochondria contain inner membrane systems where electron transport and oxidative phosphorylation are central to ATP production [12] [13].
Cardiolipin is a phospholipid strongly associated with mitochondrial membranes and respiratory-chain organization [8] [9]. Reviews describe cardiolipin as important for mitochondrial protein assembly, membrane structure, electron transport chain complexes, and supercomplex organization [8] [10].
SS-31 research often intersects with cardiolipin because several studies describe SS-31 interaction with cardiolipin-containing systems or lipid bilayers [5] [6].
Mitochondrial bioenergetics refers to study models that examine electron flow, membrane potential, oxygen consumption, ATP production, and redox-linked mitochondrial parameters. NCBI Bookshelf summarizes oxidative phosphorylation as electron transfer through inner-membrane complexes coupled to proton-gradient-driven ATP synthesis [12] [13].
SS-31 is studied in this lane because mitochondrial literature has evaluated cardiolipin-linked respiration, cytochrome c/cardiolipin interaction, and ATP-related outputs in model systems [6] [14].
ATP production belongs in the article as pathway context, not as a product claim. The electron transport chain and ATP synthase are core elements of oxidative phosphorylation, and ATP synthase uses the proton gradient across the inner mitochondrial membrane to form ATP [12].
In SS-31 literature, ATP-related measurements are model-specific research endpoints. They should be discussed as study outputs, not as claims about a research-use-only product.
Mechanism of action language can become risky if it is written like a product promise. For RUO positioning, mechanism context should describe what the literature examines and where uncertainty remains.
Published studies report SS-31 interaction with cardiolipin-containing membranes, lipid bilayers, and mitochondrial protein environments [5] [6] [7]. A 2020 PNAS study used chemical cross-linking with mass spectrometry to map SS-31 mitochondrial protein interaction patterns, including proteins linked to ATP production and oxidative phosphorylation pathways [7].
This does not mean a product page can claim biological outcomes. It means researchers have mechanistic literature to interpret alongside identity and analytical documentation.
The electron transport chain includes complexes and carriers in the inner mitochondrial membrane that transfer electrons and contribute to a proton gradient used by ATP synthase [12]. Reviews of mitochondrial reactive oxygen species also describe ETC function as closely linked to redox biology and oxidative stress models [11].
SS-31 literature connects to this area through cardiolipin, cytochrome c/cardiolipin interaction, and model-specific mitochondrial bioenergetics endpoints [6] [7].
SS-31 research applications should be described by model type and measured pathway context. The safer categories are cellular research, mitochondrial research, cardiovascular research context, bioenergetic assays, and oxidative stress models.
Oxidative stress models can show how a defined experimental system responds under selected laboratory conditions. Reviews describe mitochondrial reactive oxygen species as linked to ETC function, redox signaling, and stress biology in model systems [11].
For SS-31, oxidative stress belongs in the article as literature context. It should not be written as “antioxidant SS-31” product positioning or as a product-performance claim.
Mitochondrial dysfunction is a literature concept used to describe altered mitochondrial structure, respiration, redox balance, or bioenergetic parameters in defined study systems [8] [11] [13]. SS-31 research has appeared in ex vivo, cellular, and preclinical studies that examine mitochondrial function and cardiolipin-linked pathways [14] [15] [16].
That evidence remains model-specific. RUO product pages should use it to frame research background, not to imply product outcomes.
Published SS-31 literature spans mechanistic studies, cellular models, preclinical studies, ex vivo research, reviews, and human-study literature outside RUO product positioning [4] [6] [7] [15] [17]. A safer interpretation separates evidence category from product-page claims.
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | SS-31 synonyms, formula, sequence, and peptide classification [1] [2] [3] | Database and review literature | Supports identity review, not product-use positioning |
| Membrane interaction | SS-31 interaction with lipid bilayers and cardiolipin-linked systems [5] [6] | Mechanistic literature | Supports pathway context only |
| Bioenergetics | Oxygen consumption, ATP-related endpoints, and oxidative phosphorylation models [6] [7] [14] | Preclinical and mechanistic models | Supports model-specific interpretation |
| Cardiovascular research context | Ex vivo mitochondrial and supercomplex assays [15] | Ex vivo literature | Should remain separate from product claims |
| Human-study literature | Academic study settings outside RUO product use [17] | Human-study literature | Not a use claim for RUO materials |
A practical evidence ladder moves from compound identity to in vitro research, then to preclinical literature, ex vivo research, and human-study literature where it exists. Each step adds context, but each step also adds limits.
For an SS-31 product page, the strongest actionable point is not a biological claim. It is whether the product documentation supports identity, purity, lot traceability, and RUO labeling.
Study findings can support statements about what researchers examined in a specific model. They cannot support claims that an RUO material is intended for consumer, clinical, veterinary, or wellness contexts.
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 [17].
Literature context describes research findings. Product positioning describes what a supplier is offering.
Those two categories must stay separate. Phrases related to product effects or product performance require careful framing because they can become product claims if separated from model-specific literature context.
Claim boundaries protect the RUO purpose of the page. They also make the page more useful for technical procurement teams because the emphasis stays on documentation.
Commercial search intent can drift when “buy” language is paired with unsupported outcome language. For SS-31, safe content should connect commercial intent to COA review, analytical testing, and supplier documentation.
A safer search intent statement is: researchers evaluating where to buy SS-31 for research should compare identity records, COA support, and lot-level documentation.
Research pages should emphasize compound identity, research category, published literature context, analytical verification, and RUO boundaries. They should also explain what documentation a laboratory buyer can compare.
This approach serves commercial research intent without becoming a consumer product page.
Documentation is the safest bridge between commercial intent and RUO compliance. It helps the reader evaluate whether the material is labeled, tested, and traceable without implying practical product application.
For SS-31, the documentation set should connect compound name, vial label, batch details, COA, HPLC purity information, and LC-MS identity support.
A certificate of analysis is a batch-specific record that should identify the material, lot, date, test methods, and reported values. FDA analytical guidance discusses documentation of analytical procedures and validation data to support identity, quality, purity, and related attributes in regulated analytical contexts [24] [29].
For SS-31, a COA should identify the compound name, synonym if applicable, lot number, testing date, purity method, identity method, and issuing laboratory. It should also make clear whether the reported data correspond to the same batch shown on the label and product listing.
A COA is most useful when it is batch-specific. A generic certificate gives less procurement value because it may not connect to the vial under review.
Lot-specific COA review allows laboratory buyers to match the product listing to a defined batch record. NIST explains metrological traceability as a measurement result’s relationship to a reference through a documented chain; that traceability mindset is useful when reviewing test records, reference materials, and batch-level documentation [28].
For SS-31 procurement, the key question is whether the COA, label, and supplier documentation point to the same lot.
Dates and batch details help establish whether the analytical record is current for the listed material. ISO/IEC 17025 emphasizes valid laboratory results and competent testing operations, and that principle supports careful review of testing records and report details [27].
If a COA lacks batch linkage or method information, research teams should treat it as incomplete documentation.
Analytical testing can support purity, identity, and impurity review. It cannot, by itself, replace clear labeling or batch documentation.
Use this numbered lab-test verification workflow:
HPLC is widely used for peptide analysis and separation, including reversed-phase and other chromatographic modes [18]. In an SS-31 COA review, HPLC purity data can help show whether the main chromatographic peak is reported in relation to detectable related peaks under the stated method.
HPLC does not fully prove identity on its own. It is strongest when paired with identity-focused analytical data.
LC-MS and LC-HRMS can support peptide identity and impurity characterization by combining chromatographic separation with mass-based information [19] [20]. For synthetic peptides, LC-MS workflows can help characterize impurities and confirm molecular features when the method is suitable for the compound and reference data are available [20] [21].
For SS-31, LC-MS support should be reviewed alongside molecular formula, sequence documentation, and lot-specific records.
A chromatogram shows retention-time and peak-area information under a stated method, while mass data can support molecular identity review through mass-to-charge information [18] [19]. USP <621> describes general chromatography procedures, definitions, calculations, and system suitability concepts relevant to chromatographic review [26].
For procurement teams, the practical value is cross-checking: does the analytical data align with the COA, label, and compound identity?
SS-31 is a synthetic peptide, so synthesis records and purification documentation matter for research review. Solid-phase peptide synthesis is a central method in peptide chemistry, where a growing peptide chain is assembled on a resin support and then released after chain assembly [22].
Synthetic peptide source records can help laboratory teams evaluate whether the material has a coherent identity and quality record. Peptide synthesis can introduce related impurities, which is why analytical review is important for synthetic peptide characterization [20] [21].
A supplier does not need to publish proprietary manufacturing details on a product page. It should still provide enough documentation for research buyers to evaluate identity, purity, and lot traceability.
Lyophilized powder documentation can support laboratory storage and handling records. Freeze drying, also called lyophilization, removes water from a frozen sample through sublimation and desorption, and is often discussed in relation to solid-state stability of proteins and peptides [23] [30].
For RUO product pages, this topic should stay at the documentation level: storage conditions, label consistency, and laboratory recordkeeping.
A vial label is part of the documentation chain. It should align with the product listing, COA, and any batch-specific analytical records.
The vial label should match the compound name, lot number, catalog identifier when present, and RUO labeling. If the label says SS-31 and the COA says elamipretide, the documentation should explain that these refer to the same research peptide through recognized synonym records [1] [2].
This is especially important for abbreviations. SS-31, SS31, and SS 31 should not create separate identity records.
Batch numbers connect the product listing to the COA and any supporting analytical data. When batch identifiers are missing, the buyer cannot easily determine whether the test data apply to the listed research material.
Batch traceability is not a marketing feature. It is a documentation control.
Researchers evaluating a peptide online should compare suppliers by documentation quality, not by claim-heavy language. A safe supplier matrix reviews product-page clarity, RUO labeling, COA availability, analytical method detail, and lot traceability.
| Documentation Element | What to Review | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | SS-31, elamipretide, MTP-131, formula, sequence alignment [1] [2] [3] | Reduces naming ambiguity |
| COA | Lot-specific record, date, purity value, method | Connects testing to the listed material |
| HPLC | Chromatographic purity method and report context [18] [26] | Supports purity review |
| LC-MS or LC-HRMS | Mass-based identity or impurity characterization [19] [20] | Supports molecular identity review |
| Vial label | Lot number, compound name, RUO status | Connects physical label to documents |
| Supplier copy | Research-focused wording only | Helps maintain RUO positioning |
Research buyers should compare documentation availability, not unsupported claims. The strongest supplier documentation includes a batch-specific COA, method references, label consistency, and transparent RUO positioning.
For SS-31, same-lane content should focus on mitochondrial research, cardiolipin literature, peptide identity, and analytical verification.
Product listing details help procurement teams decide whether a material is suitable for laboratory review. Useful listing details include compound name, synonym set, research category, physical format, lot linkage, testing availability, and storage documentation.
A listing should not rely on broad claims. The more precise approach is to show the documentation chain.
A procurement checklist helps research teams evaluate SS-31 without drifting into consumer language.
Strong documentation signals include a clear RUO statement, synonym consistency, batch-specific COA, HPLC purity information, LC-MS identity support, lot number alignment, and storage documentation. Peptide reference-standard literature also emphasizes vialing, lyophilization, analytical testing, and stability studies as quality-supporting concepts for peptide standards [30].
These signals do not make biological claims. They support technical procurement review.
Red flags include consumer outcome language, clinical-use framing, unsupported product-performance statements, and missing analytical documentation. A product page that emphasizes claims over COA review is less useful for laboratory procurement.
For research teams comparing where to buy SS-31 for research, documentation quality should come before promotional language.
Published literature does not equal product-use guidance. It is acceptable to discuss what researchers have examined, but those findings should not become claims for an RUO product.
Preclinical findings should not be converted into human claims. Evidence from one model does not automatically transfer to another model, and human-study literature remains outside RUO product positioning [17].
A purity percentage does not prove complete compound identity. HPLC purity review should be paired with LC-MS or another identity-supporting method when available [18] [19].
A COA should be batch-specific. Without lot linkage, a certificate has limited value for procurement review.
Pathway relevance does not equal a product claim. Mitochondrial pathway discussion should stay tied to literature interpretation, not product outcomes.
For research teams comparing peptide suppliers, prioritize COA availability, transparent labeling, lot-level documentation, and analytical testing support. Review the product-page documentation, COA details, and RUO labeling before evaluating SS-31 for laboratory research.
SS-31 is described in research literature as a synthetic tetrapeptide also known as elamipretide or MTP-131. It is discussed in mitochondrial research contexts, including cardiolipin-associated models and peptide identity documentation [1] [2] [3]. Product-page content should treat SS-31 as a research compound and keep identity, COA review, and analytical records central.
Researchers should review RUO labeling, COA documentation, lot traceability, peptide identity data, and supplier documentation before they buy SS-31 for research. The review should also compare vial labeling, batch-specific records, and analytical testing support. A catalog amount should be treated only as a listing specification, not as practical product guidance.
SS-31 is commonly discussed on RUO product pages as a lyophilized peptide material for laboratory research. For peptide vials, researchers should compare the vial label, compound name, lot number, storage documentation, and COA details. Lyophilized peptides still require documentation-focused peptide handling review, including label consistency and batch-specific traceability.
Mitochondrial research provides the main context for SS-31 literature. Researchers have examined SS-31 alongside the mitochondrion, cardiolipin, mitochondrial bioenergetics, cellular energy models, and ATP-related study endpoints [4] [6] [7]. The role of mitochondrial dysfunction should be interpreted as model-specific research context, not as product positioning.
Researchers should interpret SS-31 pathway language as literature context tied to defined models. Terms such as mitochondria-targeting peptide, mitochondrial permeability transition pore, electron transport chain, and cellular respiration can help describe research settings when they remain tied to published literature and documentation review. They should not be converted into product claims.
RUO labeling matters because SS-31 is intended for research settings only. A research-use-only page should focus on compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and supplier documentation. Language boundaries help keep laboratory use separate from non-RUO positioning while still allowing researchers to evaluate documentation quality.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: ORCID
Hazel H. Szeto is recognized for published work that shaped the SS-31 research literature around cardiolipin, mitochondrial membrane biology, and peptide-focused mitochondrial research. Her publications help frame why SS-31 is discussed in relation to cardiolipin-associated models, mitochondrial bioenergetics, and sequence-defined tetrapeptide research. This body of work is especially relevant to the article’s research-use-only focus because it supports scientific background, pathway context, and literature interpretation without changing the product-page emphasis on documentation, compound identity, and analytical review.
Selected publications:
Author profile: Google Scholar
Juan D. Chavez is recognized for published work involving chemical cross-linking, mass spectrometry, and mitochondrial protein interaction mapping. His SS-31 publication is directly relevant to the article’s discussion of protein interaction landscapes and mitochondrial research models, while his broader analytical work supports the documentation-focused framework used for interpreting LC-MS and mass spectrometry in peptide identity review. These publications provide useful context for advanced research teams evaluating how analytical methods can support model-specific pathway interpretation and technical documentation.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how this page handles published literature and search language around SS-31 in Metabolic and Mitochondrial Research. Terms such as SS-31 administration, peptide administration, drug administration, therapeutic language, administration-focused language, clinical outcomes, and human study language can drift into consumer-facing, clinical-use, wellness, or product-claim framing when separated from model-specific research context. Related phrases such as absorption, bioavailability, efficacy, and biological activity also require careful handling so they remain research-language examples rather than product positioning.
Here, those phrases are handled only as examples of language that should stay separate from product uses, outcomes, instructions, or recommendations. The focus remains on SS-31 identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, RUO labeling, product documentation, and published literature boundaries. Research discussions involving cell signaling, metabolism, membrane fluidity, or model-specific mitochondrial pathways should be interpreted through laboratory and research documentation, not consumer-facing 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.