FREE USPS SHIPPING OVER $200Order by 12 PM Pacific Time for same-day shippingTracking on every order

Home / Guides / science

Research Watch: What Was Published in September 2026

scienceUpdated 2026-09-30Reviewed by Mike Vance, Chief Research OfficerResearch use only
Kisspeptin-10 research vial in front of an HPLC system, a chromatogram on the screen
Short answer

Research Watch for September 2026 covers nineteen peer-reviewed papers and three preprints on compounds this catalog carries. The strongest material is three evidence reviews, one from Cochrane, plus plasma stability work on kisspeptin and two skin studies. Several findings were null or unfavorable and are reported alongside the rest.

Key facts
  • Nineteen peer-reviewed papers and three preprints first published in September 2026 touch compounds this catalog carries.
  • A Cochrane review of thymosin alpha-1 in chronic hepatitis B graded the evidence from ten trials as low or very low certainty on every outcome.
  • In mouse plasma, kisspeptin-14 resisted degradation while kisspeptin-13 and kisspeptin-10 were cleaved at the N-terminus, in work from Ulster University.
  • Mass spectrometry of tape-stripped skin placed the two Matrixyl 3000 peptides at the outer surface of the stratum corneum.
  • High-frequency kisspeptin or gonadorelin priming did not amplify a later GnRH-induced LH surge in heifers.
  • Seven candidates were cut, three of them because the record placed their first online appearance in August.

Nineteen papers, three preprints, seven cut

September was a thicker month than July and August put together. Nineteen peer-reviewed papers made it, along with three preprints that are labeled as preprints wherever they appear. Seven more candidates were read and then cut, and the reasons are further down.

The date rule is the one the charter sets out. A paper belongs to the month it first became public, which usually means its online date and not the issue it was later printed in. That rule cost this edition two of its best candidates. It also caught a case report that PubMed had indexed back in May, sitting in a September issue.

As before, every item states the system before the result. Most of this month is cell, rodent or computational work. Two items involve people, and both are reviews of existing trials rather than new experiments.

Three reviews that map the evidence

The most useful reading this month came from people counting studies rather than running them.

A cardiovascular surgery group at Gazi University in Ankara published a critical review of BPC 157 in rodent ischemia-reperfusion injury in the International Journal of Molecular Sciences on 19 September. They searched to June 2026 and sorted the rodent studies by organ, injury paradigm and timing. They declined to pool the results, because the designs differed too much for a meta-analysis to mean anything. Their verdict on the literature is blunt. Short observation windows, single-dose paradigms and poorly described risk of bias run through it, and the authors class the compound as a hypothesis-generating candidate for further animal work. Independent blinded replication is first on their list of what is missing.

On 9 September the Cochrane Library published a review of thymosin alpha-1 in chronic hepatitis B, from authors at James Cook University and Newcastle University. It found ten randomised trials, published between 1991 and 2018, with about 1,350 participants between them. Certainty was graded low for serious adverse events and very low for everything else, and the authors write that they cannot tell whether the peptide changes any of the outcomes they set out to assess. Sixteen further studies are stuck awaiting assessment because their reporting is incomplete, and nobody answered the review team's enquiries.

A scoping review from Wonkwang University in Pharmaceuticals, published on 19 September, charted clinical publications on the same peptide as an adjunct in cancer care from 2016 onward. Twenty-six made the cut. Retrospective observational studies and case reports dominated, and safety reporting was patchy enough that the authors list systematic harms reporting among the things future studies need.

Put the three side by side and the pattern is the one the July and August edition described. Plenty of literature, not much of it controlled, and each review ends by asking for the trial nobody has run yet.

Stability, manufacture and metal binding

Three papers this month deal with handling rather than biology, and they are the most directly practical items in the edition.

At Ulster University's Center for Diabetes, a group compared kisspeptin-14, kisspeptin-13 and kisspeptin-10 in a paper in Metabolites dated 17 September. The stability work comes first in their design and is the part to keep. Incubated in mouse plasma, kisspeptin-14 resisted degradation. Kisspeptin-13 and kisspeptin-10 were both clipped at the N-terminus, and kisspeptin-13 broke down into kisspeptin-10 among other fragments. The rest of the paper is beta-cell and mouse metabolic work, in which the isoforms behaved differently enough that the authors argue they should not be treated as interchangeable. Anyone reading an older paper that just says "kisspeptin" should keep that in mind.

The Laboratory of Protein Science at Hokkaido University reported in the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules on 11 September how they got recombinant LL-37 out of E. coli without it clumping. LL-37 aggregates readily, which has made bacterial production awkward. Fused to calmodulin, the peptide stayed soluble where a conventional thioredoxin tag did not, and enterokinase cut it free cleanly. NMR showed the two halves of the fusion holding onto each other. Like last edition's Bacillus paper on BPC-157, it is a reminder that a peptide made by expression carries a different impurity profile from one made on a synthesiser.

Chemists at the University of Wroclaw worked out, in Dalton Transactions on 8 September, how LL-37 binds copper and zinc. At physiological pH both metals sit on the N-terminal amine and a carboxylate. Above it, copper pulls in backbone nitrogens and forms very stable complexes, while zinc goes its own way. Swapping the chirality of a short fragment barely changed copper binding and did change zinc binding. None of this is antimicrobial efficacy. It is coordination chemistry, measured by potentiometry and spectroscopy, and it is the kind of result a certificate of analysis never mentions.

What gets through skin, and what stays on top

Two skin papers arrived in the same month from opposite directions, and they make more sense read together.

The School of Pharmacy at the University of Nottingham, working with the Boots No7 laboratory, published in the International Journal of Pharmaceutics on 23 September. Three volunteers had serums applied to their skin, which was then tape-stripped layer by layer and read by secondary ion mass spectrometry. The two peptides in Matrixyl 3000, palmitoyl tripeptide-1 and palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7, were detected in the stratum corneum, but their signal fell away at once with depth, and longer contact made no significant difference. The authors read that as the peptides sitting on the outer surface. It is an unfavorable result for anyone assuming these molecules travel far, and it came partly from a cosmetics company's own lab.

At Georgia Tech, a chemical engineering group reported in Advanced Healthcare Materials on 9 September on STAR particles, tiny star-shaped microneedles, rebuilt from biodegradable polymers. One of their three test compounds was copper tripeptide-1, which is GHK-Cu, delivered into pig skin ex vivo. Intradermal delivery across the model drugs rose by as much as 37-fold, depending on material and contact time. That figure belongs to excised pig skin and a physical device, and says nothing about the molecule on its own. What the two papers share is a finding about the barrier. Left alone, the stratum corneum stops most of what is put on it.

Receptors doing unexpected jobs

Last edition closed on orexin receptors as an example of a well-mapped mechanism. This month a thymic peptide turned up at one of them.

The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University reported in Advanced Science on 3 September that thymosin alpha-1 binds HCRTR1, the orexin-1 receptor, on neurons and suppresses RIPK3-driven necroptosis. The models are neuronal cells and mouse stroke. Mice lacking Ptma, the gene that encodes the peptide, had worse injury, and circulating levels were lower in stroke patients as well as in mice. That human part is a correlation in blood samples, with no treatment involved. An immune peptide acting through a classic neuropeptide receptor is an odd result, and it needs someone else to reproduce it.

Prohibitin, the protein the Adipotide homing sequence was built to find, came up again. Investigators at the University of Manitoba and UTHealth Houston replaced a single conserved cysteine, residue 69, with alanine in knock-in mice, and reported in the Journal of Lipid Research on 23 September that the mutant protein no longer reached the cell surface. Adipocytes took up and released long-chain fatty acids poorly, and the phenotype differed between males and females. The surface-exposed form that the homing peptide targets turns out to hinge on one residue.

Two smaller items belong here too. From the Institute of Experimental Medicine in Saint Petersburg, a purely computational study in In Silico Pharmacology on 6 September simulated kisspeptin-10 against its own receptor and several dopamine and serotonin receptors, and found it bound its own receptor most tightly. The authors say experimental confirmation is still needed. Midwestern University reported in NeuroSci on 3 September that naturally occurring oxytocin variants triggered calcium signalling and neurite outgrowth in SH-SY5Y cells, a human-derived neuron-like line that expresses the receptor without being engineered to.

Controls that separate the drug from the diet

Two incretin papers earned a place for their design as much as their result. Both used pair-fed controls, animals given exactly what the treated animals chose to eat, so that the effects of eating less can be told apart from effects of the molecule.

The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research at the University of Copenhagen, with Gothenburg, reported in Nature Metabolism on 15 September that retatrutide combined with cagrilintide produced more weight loss in diet-induced obese male rats than either alone, and more than equivalent combinations built on semaglutide or tirzepatide. Pair-feeding and weight-matching showed that reduced intake did not account for all of it, and plasma proteomics and brain transcriptomics ran alongside. These are male rats only. The paper's own argument is for designing future single molecules, which is a different claim from anything about the two compounds as a pair.

The University of Calgary and Penn State published in Molecular Metabolism on 3 September on semaglutide and the gonads of obese male and female rats. The pair-fed arm did most of the work. Several changes in males appeared in both groups and so followed weight loss, while some hormone changes in each sex were specific to the drug. The GLP-1 receptor was expressed 4.7 times more in testes than in ovaries.

The same question of what exactly is being tested sits under an NNMT paper in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology on 9 September, from the University of Michigan with Northwestern and the Mayo Clinic. Their inhibitor, II559, is a bisubstrate compound and a different molecule from 5-amino-1MQ, so nothing transfers by name. In TGF-beta-stimulated and scleroderma fibroblasts, and in a bleomycin mouse model, it lowered 1-methylnicotinamide, restored methylation potential and reduced dermal thickening, while the repressive H3K27me3 chromatin mark rose. The paper speaks to the enzyme. It says nothing about any other inhibitor of it.

Mixed and null results, reported on the same terms

A column that only relays favorable findings is advertising, so here are this month's mixed ones.

A group at the Universidade Estadual de Santa Cruz in Brazil gave kisspeptin-10 to pregnant rats made hypothyroid, and reported in Cardiovascular Toxicology on 11 September on the offspring's hearts. Cardiomyocyte proliferation and postnatal weight gain recovered. Oxidative DNA damage and endoplasmic reticulum stress markers rose in the fetal hearts, though. The authors call the rescue partial, which is accurate.

From the University of Sao Paulo and Texas A&M, in Biology of Reproduction on 11 September, came a crossover study in ovariectomised heifers of two cattle breeds. Hourly kisspeptin or gonadorelin produced the expected extra LH pulses. The hypothesis was that this priming would amplify a later GnRH-induced LH surge, and it did not. The surge was simply smaller in Brahman heifers than in Herefords, whatever the pretreatment. It is a clean negative from a well-built design, and a warning against assuming that more frequent stimulation means a bigger response.

Two NMN papers round this out, both in rodents or rodent cells. Naval Medical University in Shanghai reported in Pharmacological Research on 14 September that NMN reduced ferroptosis in an LPS liver-injury mouse model by loosening an interaction between STING and ACSL4. A Fudan University group reported in the Journal of Aging Research on 22 September on D-galactose-aged C2C12 muscle cells. That model is chemically induced and a long way from ageing, which the paper does not dwell on.

Three preprints, labeled as such

None of these has been peer reviewed, and each is here with that stated first.

A Research Square preprint posted on 21 September reports lifelong NMN in male and female mice. Median lifespan rose by 8.5 percent in females and did not rise in males, where inflammatory pathways went up instead. A sex split like that is exactly what peer review tends to probe.

A Preprints.org manuscript from 7 September used a language model, with physicians checking its work, to read de-identified clinical notes from a US network for mentions of BPC-157. Documented use rose steeply between 2020 and 2026, and where a source was recorded, compounding pharmacies and grey-market vendors were named about equally. It is a record of what clinicians wrote down. It cannot say what was in anyone's vial.

A narrative review of epitalon, posted on 9 September, draws a distinction this column shares. Epitalon, the synthetic tetrapeptide, and epithalamin, the older pineal extract, are different materials, and their literatures should not be read as one.

What was cut, and what never turned up

Seven candidates did not make it. A study of what was actually inside products sold as retatrutide in Australia, from the University of Queensland in Drug and Alcohol Review, carries a September issue date but was indexed online on 6 August. A University of Miami paper on growth hormone-releasing hormone and HIF-1 alpha in the heart went online on 1 August. A lipidated octreotide paper from Taipei appeared on 25 August. All three fell between the last sweep and this one, and none will be backfilled under a month it does not belong to.

A thymosin alpha-1 paper in Cancer Research had been online since June, and a melanotan case report since May. A MOTS-c study of lung injury in the Chinese Medical Journal has no public abstract and a paywalled text, so it could not be read against the four questions. Novo Nordisk's CagriSema phase 3 toplines of 21 September are a company announcement with no paper behind them yet.

Clinical trials and meta-analyses of prescription incretin drugs, and trial work on afamelanotide, sit outside this sweep. They are medical literature about licensed medicines, which is not what this catalog is for.

Most families produced nothing at all. TB-500, Selank, Semax, DSIP, the growth hormone secretagogues and releasing-hormone analogues, the IGF-1 variants, the short bioregulator peptides, SS-31, AOD9604 and PT-141 had no qualifying September paper. For compounds with small research communities that is the normal state of things. October's sweep runs at the end of that month.

FOR LABORATORY AND IN-VITRO RESEARCH USE ONLY. NOT FOR HUMAN OR ANIMAL CONSUMPTION. NOT FOR PERSONAL, MEDICAL, DIAGNOSTIC, THERAPEUTIC, OR RECREATIONAL USE.

Common questions

Why was the retatrutide product-testing study left out?

Because the record shows it went online on 6 August, even though the journal later printed it in a September issue. This column dates a paper by when it first became public. The study matters to anyone buying research material, and it fell into the gap between two sweeps. Bending the date rule for a paper we would like to discuss is exactly how the rule stops meaning anything.

Does the Cochrane review mean thymosin alpha-1 does not work?

No. It means the ten trials it found are too small, too old and too exposed to bias for anyone to say either way. The reviewers graded most outcomes as very low certainty and wrote that they could not tell whether the peptide changed them. That describes the evidence. A well-run trial coming back negative would be a different finding, and this column keeps the two apart.

Why include a study run partly by a cosmetics company on its own ingredient?

Because what it found was unhelpful to the ingredient. Mass spectrometry of tape-stripped skin placed the two Matrixyl peptides at the surface of the stratum corneum, and longer contact changed nothing significant. The industry authorship is stated in the entry. A result that cuts against the funder is, if anything, easier to take at face value than one that flatters it.

Why are preprints included at all?

Because some useful work appears first as a preprint and would otherwise wait months to be mentioned. Each one here is labeled as not peer reviewed at the start of its entry, and none is used to support anything else in the piece. If a preprint is later published with different numbers or conclusions, a future edition will say so.

How many compound families had nothing new this month?

Most of them. The growth hormone secretagogues, TB-500, Selank, Semax, DSIP, the IGF-1 variants, the short bioregulator peptides, SS-31, AOD9604 and PT-141 produced no September paper that met the standard. A review that mentions a compound in passing is not new work on it, and those passing mentions were not counted.

Sources

FROM THE BENCH

Lot reports, storage data, and what we learn testing them.

A short note when new certificates post, when a stability result surprises us, and when a guide worth reading goes up. No promotions.

Research correspondence only. Unsubscribe in one click. We never sell or share an address.

Shop the compounds

Research Watch: What Was Published in September 2026 research vial, supplied with lot-specific documentationRetatrutideSizes, price per mg and lot certificateResearch Watch: What Was Published in September 2026 research vial, supplied with lot-specific documentationTirzepatideSizes, price per mg and lot certificateResearch Watch: What Was Published in September 2026 research vial, supplied with lot-specific documentationSemaglutideSizes, price per mg and lot certificateResearch Watch: What Was Published in September 2026 research vial, supplied with lot-specific documentationBPC 157Sizes, price per mg and lot certificateResearch Watch: What Was Published in September 2026 research vial, supplied with lot-specific documentationGHK-CuSizes, price per mg and lot certificateResearch Watch: What Was Published in September 2026 research vial, supplied with lot-specific documentationTB-500Sizes, price per mg and lot certificate
Browse all compounds