$69.99
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.
Tesamorelin 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.
Tesamorelin 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.
Researchers who buy Tesamorelin for research should evaluate it as a laboratory material with documented identity, purity, and lot traceability. Tesamorelin is a synthetic peptide analog related to growth hormone-releasing hormone, and official compound records describe it as a 44-amino-acid peptide with an N-terminal hexenoyl modification [1]. This page frames Tesamorelin research through RUO documentation, analytical testing, and literature interpretation, not personal, veterinary, diagnostic, or clinical positioning.
Researchers should check COA availability, peptide identity data, analytical testing, lot traceability, and RUO labeling before they buy Tesamorelin for research. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. Scientific databases classify Tesamorelin as a peptide analog, while analytical guidance supports method-specific verification for identity and purity review [2] [9].
The phrase “buy Tesamorelin” has commercial intent, but a compliant product-page article must narrow that intent to research procurement. The safer framing is buy Tesamorelin for research, where the focus is not on personal outcomes but on product documentation, analytical review, and RUO labeling.
That shift matters. A research buyer is evaluating whether the supplier record, COA, label, and batch documentation are consistent. The page should answer procurement questions without becoming a use guide, a treatment discussion, or a wellness article.
The first review point is the batch-specific certificate of analysis. A useful COA should connect the compound name, lot number, identity method, purity method, and analytical result to the same material listing.
For peptides, this is especially important because identity and purity are not the same thing. HPLC can support purity review, while mass spectrometry can support molecular identity review when method details and batch matching are present [8] [10].
RUO labeling keeps the page in a laboratory research lane. FDA guidance for RUO-labeled in vitro diagnostic products emphasizes that RUO labeling should align with intended research positioning and should not be used to imply diagnostic claims [11]. While peptide research materials are not the same category as IVD products, the principle is useful for copy review: labeling and surrounding language should tell the same research-only story.
Research-use-only context means the page is written for qualified laboratory evaluation. It does not provide practical personal guidance, disease guidance, veterinary guidance, or clinical-use instructions.
For Pure Lab Peptides, RUO positioning should be direct and consistent. A product page can discuss compound identity, published literature, receptor context, analytical testing, and procurement documentation. It should not turn literature findings into claims for the product.
Research use means the copy should answer technical procurement and documentation questions. It should explain what Tesamorelin is in published and database context, how researchers evaluate identity documentation, and why lot-level evidence matters.
The page should also avoid framing scientific literature as a promise about the material being sold. 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.
Product documentation anchors commercial intent by giving researchers neutral, verifiable review points. For Tesamorelin, this includes compound name, molecular formula, molecular weight, peptide classification, COA date, lot number, testing method, and storage notes.
Official sources list Tesamorelin under the molecular formula C221H366N72O67S and show a molecular weight near 5136 Da for the free base compound [2] [4]. DailyMed’s label description also identifies Tesamorelin acetate as a synthetically produced GRF analog with a hexenoyl moiety at the N-terminal region [1].
Tesamorelin is a synthetic peptide analogue of growth hormone-releasing hormone. DailyMed describes the acetate form as a human growth hormone-releasing factor analog produced synthetically and composed of the 44-amino-acid sequence of human GRF with a hexenoyl moiety attached at the N-terminal tyrosine residue [1].
Database coverage helps confirm entity consistency. PubChem, ChEMBL, KEGG, and Guide to Pharmacology each provide compound-level records that can support identity review during literature mapping and procurement documentation [2] [3] [4] [5].
In research documentation, “synthetic peptide analogue” means the molecule is related to a known peptide sequence but includes a defined structural modification. For Tesamorelin, the N-terminal hexenoyl modification is a key identity feature described in official labeling and database records [1] [4].
This matters for research procurement because a name match alone is not enough. The COA and supporting records should connect the listed material to the expected peptide identity.
Peptide sequence matters because synthetic peptides can differ through sequence errors, truncation, modification, or related impurities. Peptide reference-standard literature describes identity, purity, analytical testing, vialing, lyophilization, and stability as key quality considerations for synthetic peptide standards [9].
For Tesamorelin, sequence-related documentation should align with the database identity and any supplier COA. A research team should not treat a purity percentage as full identity proof without supporting analytical context.
The N-terminus is part of the compound’s identity because Tesamorelin includes a hexenoyl group attached at the N-terminal tyrosine residue [1]. KEGG also represents the sequence with a C6H9O group preceding the peptide chain, which is consistent with the N-terminal modification concept [4].
For documentation review, that means the N-terminal feature should be treated as part of compound characterization. Researchers can use this point when comparing molecular identity across COAs, database entries, and literature descriptions.
Tesamorelin belongs in a GHRH analog research lane. That lane includes endocrine pathway research, receptor classification, peptide identity, and literature boundaries.
The GHRH receptor is a G protein-coupled receptor associated with adenylyl cyclase signaling in official protein records [6]. IUPHAR places the GHRH receptor within the glucagon receptor family and provides receptor-level nomenclature support [7].
GHRH literature frames the pathway around pituitary somatotroph signaling. A review by Mayo describes molecular characterization of GHRH and the GHRH receptor as a framework for understanding hypothalamic regulation of pituitary somatotroph function [12].
That is a research context, not a product claim. For a product page, the safer takeaway is that Tesamorelin belongs in the GHRH receptor research category and should be evaluated through compound identity and documentation.
Pathway classification helps researchers avoid random entity stacking. Tesamorelin should be discussed with same-lane concepts such as GHRH receptor, adenylyl cyclase, cyclic adenosine monophosphate, protein kinase A, pituitary signaling, and peptide identity.
Gaylinn’s review identifies GHRH-R as a class II G protein-coupled receptor involved in normal growth hormone synthesis and release within endocrine physiology [13]. In RUO copy, that background should remain pathway context only.
Receptor research helps place Tesamorelin in the correct scientific lane. It also creates a boundary risk if receptor findings are written like product outcomes.
The safer approach is to explain the pathway in plain language, cite the source, and return to documentation. For product-page readers, the key question is not whether a pathway sounds interesting. It is whether the research material has appropriate identity and analytical support.
UniProt describes the human GHRH receptor as a receptor for GRF that is coupled to G proteins activating adenylyl cyclase [6]. Guide to Pharmacology also lists the GHRH receptor as a named receptor target in the glucagon receptor family [7].
These records help researchers place Tesamorelin in receptor research. They do not establish any intended product application for RUO materials.
GHRH receptor signaling is commonly discussed through Gs, adenylyl cyclase, cyclic adenosine monophosphate, and protein kinase A pathway language. A review on GHRH-related biology describes GHRHR as a class II B GPCR that couples predominantly to the Gs-adenylate cyclase-cAMP signaling pathway [14].
This gives researchers a model for literature interpretation. It should not be written as product performance language.
Researchers should avoid turning pathway relevance into a claim. A receptor interaction or signaling pathway does not, by itself, establish any product-use conclusion.
This is where claim boundaries matter. Phrases related to product effects or product performance require careful framing because they can become claims if separated from model-specific literature context.
Published literature around Tesamorelin includes receptor pathway context, endocrine literature, adipose-tissue research, liver-related research, and transcriptomic analyses. Some of that literature is outside RUO product use and should be treated as academic context only.
The safest product-page framing is an evidence landscape. It helps readers separate what a paper examined from what an RUO product page can say.
Tesamorelin literature includes human study settings, imaging endpoints, metabolic markers, and pathway-focused interpretation. Falutz and colleagues studied TH9507, a growth hormone-releasing factor analogue, in published research involving visceral adipose tissue endpoints [15]. Stanley and colleagues later examined relationships between adipose-tissue changes and metabolic markers in the literature [16].
For this product page, those sources are cited only to map the literature landscape. They are not product-use claims for Pure Lab Peptides materials.
In vitro and preclinical literature can help explain receptor systems, signaling cascades, and model-specific pathway activity. Endotext describes growth hormone physiology through hypothalamic and pituitary regulation, while StatPearls summarizes pituitary gland regulation with GHRH, somatostatin, and IGF-1 feedback [17] [18].
These sources support basic pathway context. They do not change RUO positioning.
Translational limits are important because different evidence types answer different questions. Database records describe identity. Receptor sources describe pathway context. Published studies describe model-specific findings. Analytical methods describe verification.
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | Formula, molecular weight, peptide class, and structural descriptors [2] [3] [4] | Database / official record | Supports entity matching and documentation review |
| GHRH receptor context | GHRHR classification and adenylyl cyclase pathway links [6] [7] [14] | Official protein database / review | Supports pathway mapping, not product claims |
| Literature landscape | Adipose-tissue and liver-related endpoints in published research [15] [16] [19] | Published literature | Academic context only; not RUO product positioning |
| Transcriptomic research | Hepatic gene-expression signatures in a published study context [20] [21] | Published literature | Model-specific interpretation only |
| Analytical verification | HPLC, mass spectrometry, reference standards, and peptide quantification [8] [9] [10] [22] | Analytical literature | Supports documentation review and method comparison |
Research literature and product claims must stay separate. Published papers may examine biological pathways, model-specific endpoints, or analytical methods. An RUO product page should not convert those findings into claims about the material being offered.
This is the central compliance rule for a page that targets commercial research intent. Product copy should point back to COA review, identity documentation, analytical testing, lot traceability, and RUO labeling.
Study findings belong to the context of the study. They depend on model design, controls, measurements, and interpretation limits.
For example, published literature has examined non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and hepatic fat fraction in contexts outside RUO product use [19]. That does not create an intended use for RUO Tesamorelin materials.
Claim boundaries mean the page can say what researchers should review, but it should not say what the compound is “for” outside laboratory research. It can say “review the COA.” It can say “compare the lot number.” It can say “evaluate identity documentation.”
It should not present clinical-use language as product positioning. The product-page anchor is documentation, not outcome language.
Product documentation gives the page its safe commercial structure. It allows Pure Lab Peptides to serve searchers evaluating research procurement while keeping the content technical.
The documentation anchor includes four layers: product listing, label, COA, and batch-specific analytical records. If those layers align, procurement review is clearer.
A certificate of analysis is one of the most important records for a research peptide. It should be batch-specific and should describe the test methods used to support the reported identity and purity data.
COAs should be read alongside analytical method guidance. ICH Q2(R2) describes validation principles for analytical procedures, including accuracy, precision, specificity, and other performance characteristics [23].
A Tesamorelin COA should show the compound name, lot number, testing date, method names, reported purity, identity confirmation method, and laboratory source. For peptide research materials, method detail matters because different methods support different questions.
HPLC may support purity review by separating peptide components, while mass spectrometry may support identity review through mass-based information [8] [10]. A stronger record connects both to the same lot.
COAs support research-use verification by making the batch auditable. They help research teams confirm that the material listing matches the tested material.
The COA should not be generic. A reusable or non-batch-specific document gives less procurement value because it does not show that the listed lot has been evaluated.
A COA review matrix gives procurement teams a simple way to compare supplier records. It also reduces the risk of focusing on a single attractive number while missing identity or traceability gaps.
Use the matrix below as an editorial and procurement checklist. It is not a laboratory instruction set; it is a documentation review framework.
| COA Field | What to Compare | Why It Matters |
|---|---|---|
| Compound name | Tesamorelin, Tesamorelin acetate, TH9507 naming consistency | Reduces identity ambiguity across records [2] [3] [4] |
| Lot number | Product label, COA, and supplier record | Supports batch-specific traceability |
| Identity method | LC-MS, MS, or other suitable identity record | Helps confirm molecular identity [10] |
| Purity method | HPLC or another separation method | Supports peptide purity review [8] |
| COA date | Testing date and document revision date | Helps confirm document relevance |
| Storage notation | Label and supporting storage record | Supports controlled laboratory documentation |
| Laboratory source | Internal or third-party testing record | Helps evaluate documentation confidence |
Research buyers should compare fields across documents, not just within one file. The compound name should match the product listing. The lot number should match the label. The method names should match the analytical report.
This layered review is basic, but it catches many documentation gaps. For research teams, consistency is a quality signal.
Batch-specific data matters because research records need traceability. A lot-level COA ties analytical claims to one defined batch, rather than to a general product name.
That helps laboratory teams document what was evaluated, which analytical methods were listed, and which material record was selected.
Quality and documentation checklist
Analytical testing connects the physical material to the documentation record. For peptide research materials, HPLC and LC-MS are common terms because they support different but complementary review questions.
ICH Q14 describes science- and risk-based approaches for developing and maintaining analytical procedures [24]. For RUO procurement, that does not mean a product page needs regulatory submission language. It means method names and analytical records should be specific enough to review.
HPLC separates peptide-related components based on chromatographic behavior. A review of HPLC analysis and purification of peptides describes major HPLC modes used for peptides, including reversed-phase approaches [8].
For COA review, HPLC is useful because it can support a purity percentage and chromatogram-based evaluation. It does not automatically confirm every structural feature of the peptide.
LC-MS combines chromatographic separation with mass spectrometric detection. Published LC-MS literature describes its role in peptide and protein analysis, including peptide detection and characterization [25].
For Tesamorelin documentation, LC-MS can support molecular identity review when the observed mass data align with the expected compound record. The strongest documentation connects the identity method, lot number, and COA.
Chromatograms add a visual and data-based record of separation. ICH Q2(R2) notes that representative data such as chromatograms and spectra can be used to demonstrate specificity where appropriate [23].
For procurement review, chromatograms help researchers assess whether a reported purity value is supported by method output. They should be reviewed with method details, not as standalone graphics.
Lab-test verification protocol
Lot traceability is the link between a material and its records. It is central to reproducibility, audit readiness, and procurement review.
For Tesamorelin, the lot record should connect the product listing, label, COA, and analytical test results. If one of those elements is missing or inconsistent, the research team has less documentation confidence.
Research buyers should review lot numbers because the same compound name can appear across multiple batches. A lot number identifies the specific batch tied to the COA.
This matters for recordkeeping. If later research notes cite a material, the lot number allows the team to trace which batch-specific analytical record was reviewed.
Traceability supports repeatable research records by reducing uncertainty about material identity. It does not guarantee that a study can be repeated exactly, but it helps remove one documentation variable.
For peptide procurement, lot traceability should be considered alongside storage documentation, testing method, and supplier record consistency.
Teams that buy Tesamorelin for research should evaluate the supplier documentation before comparing any other product-page details. The page should make technical review easy.
A strong supplier record includes compound identity, COA access, testing method notes, storage language, and RUO labeling. A weaker record leaves researchers guessing.
Researchers should compare supplier records across the same documentation categories. The most useful categories are product listing, COA, lot number, label language, testing method, storage notes, and available third-party documentation.
This comparison should be research-focused. It should not become a consumer buying guide.
Third-party testing can add confidence when the laboratory source, method, and lot match are clear. It is less useful when the report is generic, missing the lot number, or disconnected from the product listing.
Peptide reference-standard literature also emphasizes the value of highly characterized standards, analytical testing, and stability studies for synthetic peptide quality systems [9]. RUO procurement teams can borrow the same documentation mindset without implying any clinical or diagnostic positioning.
Storage and handling documentation should describe the laboratory conditions used to maintain material integrity before research evaluation. DailyMed’s official product description identifies Tesamorelin acetate material in lyophilized powder form in the labeled product context [1].
For RUO product pages, storage language should remain documentation-focused. It should not include personal handling, preparation, or practical application guidance.
Storage records should clarify the storage condition, label language, lot number, and any documentation supplied with the material. They should also show whether storage instructions are consistent across the product listing and COA.
The goal is simple: the laboratory record should preserve context for the material as received and documented.
Powder form documentation helps researchers record the material state in a neutral way. It can include description, lot number, supplier label, and COA linkage.
For peptides, lyophilization is commonly discussed in reference-standard contexts because it can support vialing, stability, and storage practices [9]. Product-page copy should keep that discussion technical and RUO-safe.
GHRH analog research can attract unsafe interpretations when commercial search terms are mixed with literature language. A clear product page should correct that.
The safest correction is to keep returning to the evidence type. Is the statement from a database, a receptor source, a published study, an analytical method, or a product document?
Commercial language drift happens when a research page starts answering the wrong search intent. Terms from studies, marketing pages, or casual searches can push copy toward outcome language.
Common misunderstandings include:
The next step is a practical documentation review. Research teams should collect the COA, label, product listing, storage record, and any analytical report before evaluating supplier suitability.
This is where commercial research intent becomes useful. The page gives buyers a safe review structure without drifting into human, veterinary, diagnostic, or outcome-based positioning.
Before teams buy Tesamorelin for research, they should verify the compound identity, review the COA, check analytical method details, confirm lot traceability, and ensure RUO labeling is clear. They should also separate published literature from product-page claims.
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.
Researchers should consider documentation first before they buy Tesamorelin for research. The core review points include RUO labeling, COA availability, lot traceability, peptide identity, and supplier documentation. A research-focused procurement process should also check whether analytical testing records connect clearly to the same batch listed on the product page.
Research use only means Tesamorelin is positioned solely as a laboratory material for qualified research settings. The page should focus on research documentation, compound characterization, COA review, and analytical testing. It should not frame published literature as product-use guidance or present the material for human or animal consumption.
Researchers review peptide COA documentation because it helps connect the product label, lot number, purity review, and identity confirmation. A useful COA should be batch-specific and consistent with supplier documentation. When available, third-party testing can add documentation confidence if the report clearly matches the same lot and compound record.
LC-MS supports peptide identity review by pairing chromatographic separation with mass-based analysis. In Tesamorelin documentation, LC-MS can help compare the observed mass information with the expected research compound identity when the record is batch-matched [10]. This supports identity confirmation, especially when reviewed alongside the COA and lot-level documentation.
HPLC supports peptide purity review by separating peptide-related components and producing chromatographic data for documentation review [8]. For Tesamorelin research materials, HPLC records can help support purity assessment, while LC-MS or another identity-focused method may support compound confirmation. Researchers should interpret each method according to what it is designed to document.
Tesamorelin literature language should be separated from product claims by treating boundary-sensitive terms as research context only. Phrases involving growth hormone, bioavailability, clinical outcomes, or effects of Tesamorelin can drift into product-claim territory if not framed carefully. RUO pages should redirect those terms back to compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, lot traceability, and published literature boundaries.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: Mass General Research Institute
Dr. Lindsay T. Fourman’s publications are relevant to the Tesamorelin literature discussed in this article because they examine pathway-focused research models, hepatic transcriptomic patterns, and proteomic context connected to GHRH analog research. Her published work is especially useful for interpreting how model-specific findings should be separated from RUO product-page claims. The studies highlighted below informed the article’s discussion of literature interpretation, pathway mapping, and research model context for Tesamorelin without converting academic findings into product positioning.
Selected publications:
Author profile: Mass General Research Institute
Dr. Takara L. Stanley’s published work is relevant to the endocrine and peptide research context surrounding Tesamorelin. Her publications helped shape the article’s discussion of GHRH analog literature, model-specific evidence, and careful interpretation of published research on RUO product pages. The selected publications below are useful for understanding how Tesamorelin appears in the scientific literature while keeping product-page language focused on documentation, compound identity, and research boundaries.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how this page handles published literature and search language around Tesamorelin. In GHRH analog research content, terms such as visceral adipose, growth hormone levels, growth hormone axis, liver fat, fat accumulation, and lipid metabolism can drift into consumer-facing, wellness, clinical-use, or product-claim language when framed incorrectly. Phrases connected to diabetes, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, body composition, or excess abdominal fat should also remain separate from product positioning and interpreted only within model-specific research context.
Here, those phrases are handled as research-language examples, not product uses, outcomes, instructions, or recommendations. The same caution applies to terms such as research and clinical, absorption, therapeutic language, wellness language, consumer outcomes, and administration-focused language, which require careful separation from RUO product copy. The focus remains on Tesamorelin identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, research-use-only 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.