Original price was: $79.99.$59.99Current price is: $59.99.
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.
TB-500 5mg 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.
TB-500 5mg 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. | 901758-09-6 |
|---|---|
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Sequence | Trans-3-Hexenoyl-Tyr-Ala-Asp-Ala-Ile-Phe-Thr-Asn-Ser-Tyr-Arg-Lys-Val-Leu-Gly-Gln-Leu-Ser-Ala-Arg-Lys-Leu-Leu-Gln-Asp-Ile-Met-Ser-Arg-NH2 |
| Molecular Formula | C221H366N72O67S |
| Molecular Weight | 5135.89 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 | Growth hormone secretion studies, metabolic regulation research, obesity therapy research |
| 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.
TB-500 is discussed here as a research-material name associated with thymosin beta-4 fragment literature, and this guide is built for teams evaluating where to buy TB-500 for research while keeping the focus on RUO documentation [3]. For Pure Lab Peptides, the core product-page question is not a consumer question; it is whether compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and label consistency are clear enough for qualified research professionals. The scientific context below is limited to laboratory research, published literature, and documentation review.
Researchers looking to buy TB-500 for research should first check whether the product page provides clear RUO labeling, batch-specific COA documentation, peptide identity support, and analytical testing information. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. The safer buying framework is documentation-first, not claim-first.
The phrase buy TB-500 becomes RUO-safe only when it is narrowed to research procurement and laboratory documentation. A standalone commercial query can become ambiguous, so this page anchors the search intent to peptide identity, certificate of analysis review, HPLC, LC-MS, and lot traceability.
Analytical literature has described TB-500 using high-performance liquid chromatography and high-resolution mass spectrometry to identify an N-acetylated thymosin beta-4 fragment, which is why product-page review should not rely on the name alone [3]. Synthetic peptide quality studies also show that peptide materials can contain structure-related impurities, making documentation review part of technical procurement [18].
Before procurement review, researchers should look for the compound name, lot number, batch-specific COA, analytical method, purity record, and identity-supporting test data. These documents should tell the same story.
A COA should be treated as a batch record, not a generic marketing asset. FDA’s Q2(R2) guidance frames analytical validation around measurements such as identity, purity, impurities, and quantitative or qualitative measurements, which makes method clarity important when reviewing testing records [12].
RUO labeling sets the page context by defining the product as a laboratory material rather than a consumer item. FDA guidance on RUO-labeled in vitro diagnostic products states that RUO labeling is tied to research-only positioning and should be consistent with intended research context [11].
For a peptide product page, that means the content should emphasize documentation, analytical verification, and research boundaries. It should not convert literature findings into claims about a Pure Lab Peptides product.
A TB-500 product page should serve laboratory buyers, research teams, and technical procurement staff. The page should answer documentation questions clearly: What is the listed peptide? Which lot does the COA cover? Which test methods support identity and purity? Where can the batch record be reviewed?
RUO means the material is positioned for laboratory research purposes. For TB-500 research, that means the page can discuss peptide identity, thymosin beta-4 literature, analytical testing, and supplier records while keeping all copy separate from consumer-facing claims.
In practical terms, RUO content should clarify what the documentation says and what published literature can support. It should not provide personal-use instructions or clinical-use positioning.
Product copy should keep laboratory research separate by using technical language: compound characterization, peptide COA, analytical testing, lot traceability, storage documentation, and literature context. It should avoid language that makes the page sound like a wellness, cosmetic, fitness, or clinical guide.
A safer pattern is simple: the literature section explains what researchers have examined; the product-page section explains what documentation is available. Those two functions should not merge.
TB-500 is commonly discussed in research-material contexts as a synthetic peptide associated with a thymosin beta-4 fragment. In one analytical characterization study, researchers described detection and identification of the N-acetylated 17–23 fragment of human thymosin beta-4, Ac-LKKTETQ, in TB-500 using HPLC and high-resolution mass spectrometry [3].
Compound identity should be verified by sequence documentation, molecular record, and analytical data. The phrase peptide info should point readers toward the actual lot record, not a generic synonym list.
NCBI identifies TMSB4X as the gene for thymosin beta 4 X-linked and describes the encoded protein as involved in actin polymerization, proliferation, migration, and differentiation [1]. UniProt’s thymosin beta-4 entry also supports actin-monomer binding as a core annotation [2].
TB500 is a synthetic version of an active region discussed in relation to thymosin beta-4 fragment literature, but product pages should still rely on the listed sequence and analytical record for the specific lot [3]. The compact spelling TB500, the hyphenated TB-500, and the spaced form TB 500 should be treated as naming variants that require documentation alignment.
That alignment matters because thymosin beta-4, thymosin beta4, and fragment-specific terms can appear in different literature and supplier contexts. The product page should keep those names organized without implying that every term describes the same material in every context.
TB-500 peptide identity review belongs in the cellular pathway research lane. The same lane includes thymosin beta-4 fragment research, actin-binding literature, cell migration models, and peptide documentation concepts.
Thymosin beta, thymosin beta 4, thymosin beta-4, and Tβ4 can appear in scientific literature. Researchers should treat these as naming signals that need source review, because database entries, full-length protein discussions, and fragment-specific papers may not refer to identical materials.
Mutational analysis literature mapped actin-binding regions of thymosin beta-4 using synthesized variants, showing why sequence-level detail matters in this peptide family [4]. Structural studies also describe how thymosin beta-4 interacts with actin, which adds context for why actin-binding appears often in the research literature [5].
BPC-157 may appear near TB-500 in supplier catalogs because both are often discussed within broad cellular pathway research categories. That does not make them interchangeable.
For product-page review, the better comparison is documentation quality. Researchers can compare whether each listing provides a COA, lot number, purity method, identity method, storage notation, and clear RUO labeling.
A TB-500 product page should position the material as a research peptide with documentation-first procurement support. The page should be easy to scan for compound identity, testing records, and RUO boundaries.
A research material listing should clarify the compound name, synonym handling, lot number, COA availability, analytical test methods, and storage documentation. It should also make clear that the material is for laboratory research only.
For TB-500, the listing should avoid treating the search phrase buy TB-500 as a consumer buying guide. The safer product-page answer is: review the documentation before comparing suppliers.
Commercial research intent is legitimate when the buyer is evaluating documentation for laboratory procurement. Product documentation supports that intent by reducing ambiguity around identity, purity, batch matching, and supplier records.
FDA’s Q14 guidance describes analytical procedure development through science- and risk-based approaches, which is useful background for why analytical method transparency matters in technical review [13]. While that guidance is not a product-page checklist for RUO peptides, its documentation principles help frame method clarity.
Synthetic thymosin research centers on peptide identity, actin interaction, and cellular pathway models. This scientific background should be handled as literature context, not product positioning.
Synthetic peptide context starts with the molecule itself. In the TB-500 literature, an N-acetylated thymosin beta-4 fragment was characterized with HPLC and high-resolution mass spectrometry [3].
Mass spectrometry is well suited to synthetic peptide identity and purity analysis because the expected sequence is known and the analysis can compare observed mass data with the expected molecule [15]. This supports documentation review without making a claim about product performance.
Published models have examined thymosin beta-4 in relation to actin, cell migration, endothelial cell behavior, angiogenesis, and signaling pathway activity [7] [8]. Review literature also describes Tβ4 in multiple signaling contexts, including cytokine-related and cell migration pathways [10].
The important research boundary is that model-specific literature does not become a statement about a product. It remains scientific context for qualified researchers reviewing a research material.
Literature can support a statement that a pathway, peptide family, or model has been examined. It cannot, by itself, support a product-page claim about a specific research material unless the statement is limited to identity, documentation, or verified batch data.
For example, actin-binding literature can explain why thymosin beta-4 appears in cellular pathway discussions [4] [5]. It should not be rewritten as a claim that a product creates a biological outcome.
Mechanism of action context for TB-500 research should be presented as a literature map. The safest approach is to describe what has been studied: actin-binding, cell migration models, endothelial cell assays, angiogenesis models, Akt/PKB signaling, and cytokine-related signaling context.
Thymosin beta-4 is widely discussed as an actin-binding peptide. Structural work has shown thymosin beta-4 interaction with actin monomers, and later structural work described thymosin beta-4/profilin exchange in relation to actin filament polymerization [5] [6].
Experimental literature has also examined the actin-binding site in relation to endothelial cell migration and angiogenesis models [7]. These terms belong in the research lane and should not be converted into consumer-facing claims.
Akt and cell signaling appear in thymosin beta-4 literature because some studies have examined integrin-linked kinase and Akt/PKB-associated pathways in preclinical and cellular models [8]. Developmental cell literature has also described coordination between actin polymerization and ILK–Akt2 activity during endothelial cell migration [9].
Cytokine-related discussion appears in review literature as part of broader Tβ4 signaling context [10]. On a product page, these terms should remain part of a mechanism-of-action overview, not a claim framework.
Researchers should interpret TB-500 research by separating compound identity, model type, evidence level, and RUO procurement relevance. That keeps the article useful for commercial research intent without creating unsupported claims.
Pathway relevance means that a molecule, peptide family, or fragment appears in a research model. It does not mean that a product page can claim the same pathway will occur in a broader setting.
This distinction is especially important for TB-500 because the broader thymosin beta-4 literature includes full-length protein studies, fragment studies, and pathway reviews [3] [10]. Product documentation should focus on the specific research material and the batch record.
Preclinical literature adds mechanistic context, model diversity, and source-quality signals. It does not provide product-use guidance for RUO materials.
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | TB-500 as an N-acetylated thymosin beta-4 fragment identified through HPLC and HRMS [3] | Analytical study | Supports identity-focused documentation review |
| Actin interaction | Thymosin beta-4 binding and structural interaction with actin [5] [6] | Structural biology | Supports mechanism context only |
| Cell migration models | Actin-binding site and endothelial cell migration research [7] | Cellular model | Supports literature mapping, not product claims |
| Akt signaling context | ILK and Akt/PKB pathway observations in thymosin beta-4 literature [8] [9] | Preclinical and cellular literature | Supports pathway discussion with RUO boundaries |
| Analytical quality | Validation concepts for identity and purity measurements [12] [13] | Official guidance | Supports review of test documentation |
Source quality filters reduce overstatement by separating peer-reviewed literature, official databases, analytical method guidance, and marketing language. For TB-500, the strongest sources for product-page education are database entries, analytical characterization papers, structural biology, and method guidance.
A simple filter works well: identify the source type, define the claim, check whether the claim applies to the compound or to a model, and then decide whether it belongs on a product page. If the claim is not about identity, testing, literature context, or documentation, it likely belongs outside RUO copy.
Research literature should stay separate from product claims by preserving the context of each study. 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.
Study findings often depend on model conditions, assay design, and the exact material tested. Product positioning should instead describe what the product page can verify: label consistency, COA data, analytical testing, and lot traceability.
Phrases about product effects or product performance require careful framing because they can become claims if separated from model-specific literature context. RUO copy should bring the reader back to documentation and source quality.
Claim boundaries support RUO positioning by keeping the product page focused on what can be documented. For a TB-500 research peptide, that means compound name, sequence documentation where available, COA, HPLC, LC-MS, lot number, and storage record.
Boundary-sensitive clinical-use language should be reserved for controlled editorial review, not used as product-page positioning. The safer framing is: published literature can inform scientific context, while product documentation verifies the batch.
Product-page copy should keep four things separate: literature findings, product documentation, research procurement, and boundary-sensitive search language.
Common misunderstandings to avoid:
A certificate of analysis is one of the most important documents on a TB-500 product page. It should help researchers connect the product listing to a specific lot and analytical record.
Researchers should compare the compound name, lot number, test date, purity value, analytical method, identity-supporting method, reporting lab, and any notes linked to the batch. FDA Q2(R2) discusses validation concepts for analytical procedures, including identity, purity, impurities, and qualitative or quantitative measurements [12].
For peptide reference materials, USP-affiliated literature describes analytical strategies that can include RP-HPLC and other testing to support peptide quality documentation [14]. This makes method visibility important when reviewing a COA.
A COA library supports batch review by making batch-specific documentation easier to locate and compare. The key is matching the COA to the lot shown on the product listing.
A COA library should not be treated as a broad purity promise. It is a document access point that supports lot-level review.
Peptide purity and peptide identity are related but different. A purity result describes a chromatographic or analytical finding, while identity testing asks whether the intended molecule is supported by the data.
HPLC supports peptide purity review by separating peptide-related components under defined chromatographic conditions. Peptide HPLC literature describes modes such as reversed-phase, ion-exchange, and size-exclusion chromatography for peptide analysis and purification contexts [16].
For a TB-500 product page, HPLC is most useful when the COA reports the method, chromatogram context, and lot connection. A purity number without method context is less useful for documentation review.
LC-MS supports identity verification by combining liquid chromatography with mass spectrometric data. Synthetic peptide mass spectrometry methods can compare observed mass information to the expected synthetic peptide sequence [15].
For TB-500, LC-MS or high-resolution MS is especially relevant because the analytical literature identifying the N-acetylated thymosin beta-4 fragment relied on HPLC and HRMS [3]. This supports identity review without implying any product claim.
Analytical verification should work like a documentation workflow. The goal is to compare the product listing, COA, analytical data, and batch details.
Mass spectrometry adds molecular confirmation by measuring mass-related signals that can be compared with expected peptide identity. In synthetic peptide analysis, MS is widely used to support identity and purity review [15].
Research verification workflow:
Lot traceability connects a research material to a specific production and testing record. For peptide procurement, that connection is central to documentation quality.
Lot numbers matter because every batch may have its own analytical record. Without lot matching, a COA cannot be confidently tied to the material under review.
Batch-specific documentation also supports reproducibility in laboratory records. For peptide materials, procurement teams should record the lot number, COA date, label details, and storage notes.
Third-party tested documentation can add confidence when the reporting lab, method, and batch match are clear. It should still be reviewed as documentation, not as a marketing statement.
The useful question is not whether a badge appears on the page. The useful question is whether the third-party testing record identifies the peptide, the lot, the method, and the date.
Supplier review should connect the product page to the full documentation set. For TB-500, that means label clarity, RUO language, COA access, purity method, identity method, lot traceability, and storage documentation.
When a listing states that the research material is supplied in lyophilized powder form, that statement should match the label and supplier documentation. The powder form should be handled as a catalog and documentation detail.
Peptide literature on reference standards and laboratory assay materials emphasizes the importance of characterization, storage, and handling records for peptide materials used in mass spectrometry-based assays [17]. For product-page review, the key point is record consistency.
Solubility notes belong in research documentation because they describe solution chemistry considerations. They should not replace identity testing, purity review, or batch-specific COA review.
If solubility information appears on a product page, it should be framed as laboratory documentation. It should not become practical personal guidance.
Research buyers should compare the product listing, COA, COA library entry, label text, batch number, analytical test summary, storage notes, and supplier documentation. A strong record set is internally consistent.
Quality and documentation checklist:
Research procurement should end with documentation review, not a claim review. For TB-500, the strongest procurement path is label → COA → identity method → purity method → lot match → supplier record → RUO review.
Documentation supports buy TB-500 for research decisions by giving lab teams a consistent record to evaluate before supplier selection. The product page should make the research material’s identity, batch documentation, and analytical support easy to review.
For synthetic peptides, literature on quality evaluation shows why identity and impurity review matter; peptide-related impurities can be present and may require analytical methods to identify or characterize them [18]. That makes documentation clarity part of responsible procurement.
Final records should include the product listing, label, batch-specific COA, HPLC record, LC-MS or comparable identity support, COA library entry, lot number, test date, supplier documentation, and storage notes. The final review should also confirm that RUO boundaries remain clear.
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.
TB500 peptide is generally discussed as a naming variant for TB-500 in research-material contexts. The prior article described TB-500 in relation to thymosin beta-4 fragment literature, with analytical work identifying an N-acetylated thymosin beta-4 17–23 fragment by HPLC and high-resolution mass spectrometry [3]. Product pages should still rely on batch documentation rather than naming alone.
Researchers should consider documentation before they buy TB-500 for research. A research-focused review should check RUO labeling, compound name consistency, batch-specific COA data, lot traceability, HPLC purity information, LC-MS or comparable identity support, and supplier documentation. The commercial question is safest when it remains tied to laboratory procurement and product records.
TB-500 relates to protein thymosin beta-4 through fragment-focused research language. NCBI describes thymosin beta-4 as an actin-associated protein involved in actin polymerization, cell proliferation, migration, and differentiation [1]. UniProt also lists actin-monomer binding for the human thymosin beta-4 protein entry [2]. These database records support literature context, not product claims.
Receptor and pathway terms help organize literature context for TB-500 research pages. In this product category, terms such as Protein kinase B and the Akt/PKB signaling pathway may appear when literature discusses cell signaling models [8] [9]. These terms should be framed as research context and kept separate from product positioning.
Researchers review COA documentation for TB-500 because it connects a product listing to a batch-specific record. A useful COA review checks the compound name, lot number, test date, purity method, and identity-supporting method. COA review works best when paired with analytical testing records and consistent supplier documentation.
Published literature should be interpreted as research context for TB-500 research materials. Study findings may describe model-specific observations, pathway activity, or migration and differentiation language, but those findings should not become product-page claims. RUO interpretation should return to compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and documentation boundaries.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: Ghent University Academic Bibliography
Peter Van Eenoo is a published research author whose work is relevant to the analytical framework used in this TB-500 research guide. His publications help contextualize how peptide materials can be evaluated through LC-MS, high-resolution mass spectrometry, and compound characterization. This is especially relevant to documentation-focused product pages, where peptide identity, method visibility, and batch-level records are central to research procurement review. His work supports the article’s emphasis on analytical testing as a documentation tool rather than a product-use claim.
Selected publications:
Author profile: VISTEC Faculty Profile
Robert C. Robinson is a published research author whose structural biology work provides useful context for thymosin beta-4 and actin-focused literature. His publications are relevant to the cellular pathway research lane because they examine how thymosin beta-4 interacts with actin and how profilin exchange relates to actin filament polymerization. That background helps frame TB-500 discussions around pathway-focused research, peptide family context, and literature interpretation without converting structural or mechanistic findings into product claims.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how Pure Lab Peptides handles published literature and search language around TB-500. In Cellular Pathway Research content, phrases such as TB-500 for sale, tissue repair, repair and regeneration, wound healing, wound repair, tissue regeneration, collagen deposition, hair growth, functional recovery, and regenerative peptide can drift into consumer-facing, wellness, clinical-use, or product-claim language when framed incorrectly.
Here, those phrases are handled only as research-language examples, not product uses, outcomes, instructions, or recommendations. References to a naturally occurring peptide, antiinflammatory models, pro-inflammatory cytokines, or in vivo literature should remain separate from product positioning, while any laboratory framing should stay strictly for in vitro research context. The page focus remains TB-500 identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, RUO labeling, product documentation, and published literature boundaries.
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.