$54.99
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.
Vesugen 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.
Vesugen 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. | 99469-43-9 |
|---|---|
| Molecular Formula | C15H22N6O6 |
| Molecular Weight | 382.37 g/mol |
| Purity | ≥99% |
| Sequence | EDR |
| 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 | Vascular regeneration research, anti-aging studies, circulatory health support |
| 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.
Researchers comparing where to buy Vesugen for research should begin with identity documentation, lot-level COA records, and analytical testing rather than unsupported product claims. Vesugen is treated here as the KED/Lys-Glu-Asp research peptide; PubChem lists lysyl-glutamyl-aspartic acid under CID 87571363 with molecular formula C15H26N4O8 and molecular weight 390.39 g/mol [1], and published tripeptide literature links KED with Vesugen in model-specific contexts [2]. This Pure Lab Peptides guide keeps the discussion research-use-only and focuses on product-page review, literature interpretation, and laboratory documentation.
Researchers evaluating where to buy Vesugen for research should first review the compound identity, batch-specific COA, peptide purity data, LC-MS identity support, lot traceability, and RUO labeling. Products discussed in this article are intended for laboratory research use only and are not intended for human or animal consumption. The safest commercial-research decision is documentation-led, not claim-led.
The phrase “buy Vesugen” becomes RUO-safe only when the intent is narrowed to laboratory research procurement. That means the page should answer documentation questions: what the compound is, what the COA shows, which analytical methods support the listing, and how the literature should be read.
A research buyer is not evaluating personal outcomes. The buyer is evaluating whether a Vesugen peptide listing is technically documented enough for controlled laboratory research use.
The first documents to compare are the product label, batch-specific certificate of analysis, lot number, test method summary, and storage record. ICH Q2(R2) explains that analytical procedure validation is meant to show that a method is fit for its intended analytical purpose, which is a useful framework for reviewing peptide testing records [16].
FDA guidance on analytical procedures also emphasizes documentation supporting identity, quality, purity, and related analytical attributes [18]. On a research product page, that translates into a simple question: can the documentation support what the listing says?
RUO labeling sets the context for how product information should be read. FDA’s RUO guidance describes research-use-only labeling as appropriate when materials are in the laboratory research phase and not represented for diagnostic application [19].
The eCFR labeling provision for certain RUO-labeled IVD materials includes the phrase “For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures,” which illustrates why labeling clarity matters in regulated research contexts [20]. For a Vesugen research material, the same documentation logic applies: the page should stay focused on compound identity, analytical review, and research records.
Vesugen peptide identity starts with the KED sequence, written as Lys-Glu-Asp. PubChem identifies lysyl-glutamyl-aspartic acid as C15H26N4O8 with molecular weight 390.39 g/mol, giving researchers a neutral database anchor for molecular review [1].
The term bioregulator appears in short peptide literature associated with the Khavinson research lane. That term should be treated as a research classification, not as a product-performance statement.
Vesugen is generally discussed as a short synthetic peptide associated with KED. Published tripeptide literature describes KED/Vesugen in model-specific research involving endothelial and neuronal systems [2].
Other short peptide research has examined Vesugen and related peptides in tissue-specific cell culture models, including vascular endothelial cell literature focused on Ki-67 and MKI67 promoter-region modeling [3]. These are research contexts, not product-use claims.
Lys-Glu-Asp describes a three-amino-acid sequence: lysine, glutamic acid, and aspartic acid. In one-letter notation, those residues form KED, which is why Vesugen research often uses KED as the compact sequence label [1].
For documentation review, the sequence matters because it links the product listing to molecular identity. It also gives the laboratory a way to compare the label, COA, and database record.
Short peptide classification helps define the research lane. Reviews of peptide regulation literature discuss short peptides in relation to gene expression, cell differentiation, and model-specific biological processes [6] [7].
This classification does not prove a product claim. It simply helps research teams understand why Vesugen belongs in bioregulator peptide research rather than a consumer-facing category.
Vesugen research positioning should be built around traceable documentation. A listing such as Vesugen 20mg is a catalog record, while the canonical research entity remains Vesugen or KED.
The product-page goal is not to create variant-specific SEO intent. The goal is to help qualified researchers review the research compound, batch documentation, and analytical testing record.
Research buyers evaluating where to buy Vesugen for research should compare identity fields first. The compound name, KED sequence, molecular formula, lot number, COA date, and test-method summary should align across the page and supporting records.
Analytical method quality also matters. ICH Q14 frames analytical procedure development as a science- and risk-based process for building procedures suitable for assessing material quality [17].
Vial labeling is a traceability checkpoint. If the label shows one lot identifier and the COA shows another, the documentation chain is unclear.
Good laboratory and research procurement practice depends on matching records. The label, product listing, COA, and supplier archive should point to the same batch-specific material.
The phrase Khavinson peptide is often used for short peptide literature connected with Vladimir Khavinson and collaborators. Reviews by Khavinson and colleagues discuss peptide regulation of gene expression and cell differentiation across several short peptide models [6] [7].
For Vesugen, this same lane helps organize the page around bioregulator peptide research. It should not be framed as an endorsement of any applied outcome.
Khavinson-linked publications discuss short peptides through molecular, cellular, and gene expression models. For example, one systematic review summarizes peptide regulation of gene expression, while a separate review discusses short peptides in cell differentiation research [6] [7].
Those papers provide literature context. They do not replace batch-specific supplier documentation for any Pure Lab Peptides material.
Literature attribution should identify what researchers examined without turning findings into product positioning. KED literature includes molecular-genetic review work, mesenchymal stem-cell culture research, and induced-neuron model studies [5] [8] [9].
A safer interpretation is simple: cite the model, cite the method, state the limitation, and keep product copy centered on documentation.
Molecular context helps researchers verify whether a Vesugen product listing is internally consistent. Cellular context helps readers understand where published literature has placed KED.
Both forms of context require restraint. A pathway or cell model can explain research interest, but it should not imply a product effect.
For Vesugen, key identity fields include the KED sequence, molecular formula C15H26N4O8, and molecular weight 390.39 g/mol [1]. These are useful cross-checks for labels, COAs, and analytical records.
LC-MS can add identity support by comparing observed mass-related signals with expected molecular information, while HPLC can help characterize separation and purity patterns [11] [12].
Endothelial cell models appear in the Vesugen literature because vascular endothelial concepts are part of the KED research lane. A Springer-indexed paper reports that Vesugen and D-7 were studied in vascular endotheliocyte culture models and evaluated in relation to Ki-67 and MKI67 promoter-region modeling [3].
That is a model-specific research finding. It should not be restated as a Pure Lab Peptides product claim.
Vascular endothelial language belongs in the literature discussion when it identifies the model system. KED/Vesugen research has included vascular wall and endothelial cell contexts, as well as broader tripeptide model literature [2] [3].
On a product page, the safer phrasing is “vascular endothelial research context.” Avoid framing pathway relevance as evidence of product performance.
Signal pathway language can help organize the science. It can also become too claim-heavy if it is separated from model type and evidence level.
For Vesugen, the safer approach is to connect signal, gene expression, and molecular modeling terms to published research only. The page should then return to COA review and RUO labeling.
Cell signaling language should describe what a study examined. Reviews of peptide gene regulation discuss peptide interactions with regulatory pathways and gene expression models, but the evidence remains tied to experimental design [6].
Peptides can also be discussed as epigenetic modulators in broad literature, which supports careful discussion of research mechanisms without product claims [10].
A pathway can be relevant to a research model without saying anything about how a listed material performs. For product-page copy, pathway relevance should be treated as background.
This distinction is important for RUO positioning. The compound literature can guide research interest, while the product page should document identity, purity, testing, and lot traceability.
Gene expression appears in short peptide literature as a research topic, including systematic review work and cell-culture studies involving KED and related peptides [6] [8]. These papers help define the literature map for Vesugen research.
They do not remove the need for batch-specific documentation. A research material still needs COA support, label consistency, and analytical review.
Published literature should be read in layers. Start with compound identity, then identify the model type, then evaluate what the study can and cannot support.
For Vesugen peptide, this prevents over-reading. It also helps a product page serve commercial research intent without crossing into product-claim territory.
Preclinical and in vitro models can clarify how researchers studied KED in controlled settings. Literature includes organotypic culture research on Lys-Glu-Asp, vascular endothelial cell models, and specialized tripeptide model systems [3] [4] [9].
The RUO interpretation is narrow: these sources support literature context. They do not define a product application for a research-use-only listing.
Source quality filters help separate peer-reviewed literature and official databases from marketing copy. A strong filter favors PubChem for compound identity, PubMed-indexed or peer-reviewed literature for model context, and official guidance for documentation principles [1] [6] [16].
That filter also helps editors avoid overstatement. A study’s design, endpoint, and model should stay attached to every scientific sentence.
Translational limits mean research findings should not be stretched beyond the model that produced them. FDA’s RUO guidance warns that labeling and surrounding materials can affect intended-use interpretation in regulated contexts [19].
For product-page writing, the practical lesson is clear. Keep Vesugen research content educational, model-specific, and documentation-centered.
An evidence framework gives research buyers a consistent way to read the page. It also helps editors keep literature context separate from product positioning.
| Research Area | What Literature Examines | Evidence Type | RUO Interpretation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compound identity | KED/Lys-Glu-Asp, formula, and molecular weight [1] | Official database | Confirms identity fields to compare against labels and COAs |
| Vascular endothelial context | Vesugen and D-7 in endothelial cell culture and Ki-67 research [3] | Cell model literature | Supports research context, not product claims |
| Gene expression context | Short peptide literature discussing gene regulation models [6] | Review literature | Helps organize mechanisms for literature review |
| Analytical testing | HPLC for peptide separation and LC-MS for identity support [11] [12] | Analytical literature | Supports documentation review |
| RUO positioning | Research-use-only labeling principles [19] [20] | Official guidance | Keeps the product page focused on laboratory research |
Compound data belongs to identity review. Product copy belongs to documentation, labeling, and supplier evaluation.
When a paper discusses KED in a model, that paper can be cited as literature context. It should not be converted into a statement about the Pure Lab Peptides product.
A product-page research guide can include official database records, peer-reviewed model literature, analytical-method references, COA review logic, and RUO labeling guidance. ICH Q14 and Q2(R2) support method-development and method-validation concepts for analytical review [16] [17].
The page should avoid ranking evidence as if it were a product outcome ladder. The better approach is a documentation ladder: identity, purity, method, lot, label, and archive.
Research literature and product claims are different categories. Literature can describe what investigators examined, while product pages should describe what documentation is available.
Some published literature outside the scope of RUO product use has examined compound classes in human study settings. That literature should not be interpreted as a use claim for research-use-only materials.
Commercial search intent can drift when phrases about product performance are detached from model-specific literature. That drift is why Vesugen content should return repeatedly to COA documentation, analytical testing, RUO labeling, and lot traceability.
Common misunderstandings to correct: published literature is not product-use guidance; a purity value does not prove complete identity; pathway relevance is not a product claim; a COA should be batch-specific; and listing size is a catalog detail.
Documentation is the safest bridge between commercial research intent and RUO compliance. It gives laboratory buyers practical facts to review without implying non-research application.
For Vesugen, the most useful page elements are identity fields, COA details, HPLC data, LC-MS support, lot traceability, storage documentation, and a clear research-use-only statement.
A COA is useful when it is batch-specific, internally consistent, and method-aware. It should not be treated as a decorative trust badge.
For a Vesugen research material, the COA should support the identity and purity claims made by the listing. It should also match the lot and label records.
A certificate of analysis should confirm key batch details: compound name, lot number, assay or purity result, test method, COA date, and laboratory source. ISO/IEC 17025 is a laboratory competence standard for testing and calibration labs, and ISO describes it as a way for laboratories to show they operate competently and generate valid results [21].
NIST also explains traceability through reference materials, certificates, and documented measurement relationships [22]. Those principles make COA review more than a single-number purity check.
Batch-specific review means the COA belongs to the material being evaluated. NIST describes certificates and reference material records as documents that accompany reference materials and support measurement traceability [22].
In practice, the buyer should compare lot number, date, compound identity, and method fields. If those details do not match, the documentation chain is weak.
COAs and product labels should align because they are parts of the same traceability record. FDA RUO guidance also notes that labeling and related materials can be relevant to intended-use interpretation [19].
For a Vesugen vial, the label should not tell one story while the COA tells another. Research teams need consistent records.
Peptide purity and peptide identity are related but not identical. A clean chromatographic peak can support purity review, while identity confirmation needs method-specific evidence tied to the expected molecule.
A documentation-focused lab-test verification workflow can stay simple:
HPLC is widely used in peptide analysis and purification because chromatographic separation can resolve peptide components under controlled conditions [11]. In COA review, HPLC data can support a peptide purity statement when the method and batch are clearly documented.
HPLC should not be treated as a complete identity record by itself. It is one part of the analytical file.
LC-MS combines liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry, allowing separation data to be paired with mass-related information [12]. Reviews of LC-MS workflows explain that mass spectrometry can support identification by analyzing ion signals and related parameters [14].
For Vesugen, LC-MS support should connect observed data to expected KED identity. The key is batch-specific documentation.
Mass spectrometry instruments sort ions based on mass-to-charge ratio, often written as m/z [15]. Retention time and mass-related signals can help researchers evaluate whether analytical data are consistent with the listed compound [12] [15].
These details should be reviewed alongside the COA, not isolated from it. Strong documentation ties the method, result, and lot together.
Lot traceability helps connect a physical research material to the documents that describe it. That connection matters for research procurement because COAs, labels, and product records are only useful when they point to the same batch.
Documentation review should be boring in the best way. The same compound name, lot number, and identity fields should repeat across the record set.
Lot records support traceability across receipt, storage, testing, and archive documents. NIST traceability guidance emphasizes documented measurement relationships and reference material records, which supports the broader idea of traceable laboratory documentation [22].
For Vesugen research, lot records help prevent document mismatch. They also make later review easier for laboratory teams.
Batch documentation should include the product listing, label, COA, analytical data summary, and storage notes. ISO/IEC 17025’s focus on competent testing and valid results is relevant when reviewing external laboratory documentation [21].
USP reference standard pages also frame reference materials around identity, purity, and quality-related use in testing contexts [23]. Those ideas support careful review of the records behind peptide materials.
Storage and handling documentation should describe the conditions attached to the product record. For a lyophilized peptide, the page should state the documented conditions without turning them into applied-use guidance.
The goal is recordkeeping. A laboratory should be able to see what conditions the supplier lists, where those conditions appear, and whether the COA or label reinforces them.
Lyophilized powder documentation matters because solid-state form and moisture control can influence stability discussions for peptide and protein materials. Clinical Chemistry recommendations for peptides used in mass spectrometry assays discuss peptide generation, quantification, storage, and handling as part of reliable assay practice [13].
Broader freeze-drying literature describes lyophilization as a drying technology used to support solid-state stability for biological materials [25]. On a product page, that supports documentation review only.
Storage notes should be copied into laboratory records exactly as listed. USP <659> provides packaging and storage definitions, making it a useful reference for why storage language should be precise and documented [24].
For Vesugen peptide documentation, the key question is whether storage information appears consistently on the listing, label, and supporting records.
Before researchers buy Vesugen for research, the final review should be documentation-led. The product page should answer identity, purity, testing, lot, and RUO questions clearly.
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.
A simple documentation matrix can prevent scattered review. Compare the product listing, label, COA, analytical data, and batch archive side by side.
The matrix should answer five questions: Is the compound named consistently? Is KED/Lys-Glu-Asp shown correctly? Does the lot number match? Are HPLC and LC-MS records described clearly? Are storage notes documented?
Research use only means Vesugen is intended solely for controlled laboratory research contexts. For product-page review, that keeps the focus on compound identity, research documentation, batch records, and RUO labeling rather than applied claims. Researchers should evaluate Vesugen as a laboratory material supported by documentation, not as a consumer-facing product.
No, Vesugen is not intended for human or animal consumption. On a Pure Lab Peptides product page, Vesugen should be reviewed only as a research compound for qualified laboratory settings. The relevant review points are product documentation, COA consistency, peptide identity, lot traceability, and research-use-only labeling.
Vesugen peptide bioregulator refers to the research classification used for Vesugen within short peptide literature. Vesugen is a synthetic tripeptide associated with KED, also written as Lys-Glu-Asp, which supports identity review across research documentation [1]. That classification helps organize literature context without creating product claims.
Published literature about Vesugen should be interpreted as research context, not product-positioning language. Preclinical research, in vitro research models, transcriptional regulation studies, and cellular processes can help explain why a compound is studied. Those findings should remain tied to their specific models, methods, and limitations.
Researchers should consider documentation before they buy Vesugen for research. Key review points include RUO labeling, batch-specific COA records, peptide purity data, identity testing, supplier documentation, and lot traceability. Product details should support research purposes and should not be read as applied guidance.
A COA matters when reviewing Vesugen because it connects the listed compound to batch-specific documentation. A useful COA helps confirm the lot number, identity fields, purity data, test method, and review date. For research peptides, that record supports technical procurement review without turning documentation into product claims.
The following authors are recognized for published research that helped shape the scientific context discussed in this article.
Author profile: RUDN Journal of Medicine Profile
Vladimir K. Khavinson’s published work is closely connected with short peptide literature, gene expression research, and bioregulator peptide models discussed in this article. His publications provide useful background for understanding Vesugen as a KED/Lys-Glu-Asp research compound within the broader short peptide research category. The relevance of this work is strongest in literature interpretation: how peptide studies describe molecular mechanisms, cell differentiation models, and gene-regulatory context while remaining separate from product-page claims. His published work also helps frame why Vesugen content should stay focused on compound identity, model-specific research, and documentation-centered review.
Selected publications:
Author profile: Google Scholar
Natalia S. Linkova’s publications are relevant to Vesugen research context because they include short peptide, cellular model, and gene-expression literature connected to the research lane discussed in this article. Her coauthored work helps show how KED-related and related short peptide studies can be interpreted through controlled model systems, molecular markers, and documented research conditions. For a product-page research guide, this literature is useful because it supports careful separation between study context and product copy. It also reinforces the importance of framing Vesugen through compound identity, published literature boundaries, and RUO documentation review.
Selected publications:
This research disclaimer clarifies how this page handles published literature and search language around Vesugen. In bioregulator peptide research, terms such as vasoprotective, atherosclerosis, geroprotective, age-related, central nervous system, angiogenesis, neuronal differentiation, vascular function, and neuroplasticity can drift into wellness language, consumer outcomes, clinical outcomes, or therapeutic language when separated from model-specific research interpretation.
Here, those phrases are handled only as research-language examples, not product claims, intended uses, outcomes, instructions, or recommendations. The focus remains on research procurement, Vesugen compound identity, COA review, analytical testing, peptide purity, lot traceability, RUO labeling, product documentation review, and published literature boundaries. This framing keeps boundary-sensitive terminology separate from product positioning while allowing research readers to understand how model-specific literature, cellular context, and documentation standards relate to a research-use-only product page.
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.