IGF-1 and analogues wont work if chemically synthesized

[Moppy1]

Just wanted to start a discussion about an issue related to efficacy of IGF-1 and related analogs such as Des, LR3, etc. There are hundreds of threads here about IGF-1 giving good gains, especially when used with GH. However, most of us are purchasing IGF-1-LR3 from peptide synthesis companies. However, chemical synthesis of IGF-1 completely lacks the correct disulfide bonds that impart the proper folding of the protein for its activity. IGF-1 and its analogs all require 3 disulfide bonds to generate the correct folded form of the protein, and this can only be accomplished in the body as naturally produced, or in E.coli as a recombinant source, just like how GH is made (recombinantly). Insulin is very similar in structure to IGF-1 and it also is completely inactive if synthesized chemically, it also has to be made recombinantly or extracted from a biologic source (people used to use bovine Insulin before recombinant sources). Recombinant means it is made in bacteria, which have enzymes to create these intramolecular disulfide bonds so the protein folds into the right configuration. All human clinical trials or current treatment of patients in the clinic is performed with recombinant IGF-1 or the LR3 isoform. The synthesized peptide version will have 0 biologic activity. There are countless references in the scientific literature to this effect. Here is one for example:

Role of native disulfide bonds in the structure... [Biochemistry. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI

Thus, IGF-1 does work, but you have to use the recombinant form, which is 10X more expensive compared with chemically synthesized forms. What I find amusing are all the past threads claiming how great IGF-1 LR3 worked for bros, especially in combination with GH, but best I can surmise most were using the version of IGF-1 LR3 from chemical synthesis, which has 0 biologic activity, regardless of dosage.

I would love it if someone could prove me wrong here and show data that the chemically synthesized versions of IGF-1 have biologic activity. Because I would definitely love to purchase the synthesized versions as they are so much more reasonably priced compared with recombinant (in fact, it is nearly impossible to get the recombinant version of IGF-1). Feed back please....

 

[Hull Tech]

should have taken that 2nd semester of microbio over physical anthropology..

didn't read the abstract provided , i will, but, are they saying that there is zero bio availability with synthesized Disulphide bonds ?

 

[Moppy1]

Extensive biochemistry on insulin production paved the way, because of the overwhelming demand for it to treat diabetes. Insulin has 0 activity if chemically synthesized, has to be generated by bacteria (recombinant). The bacteria are optimized to make the correct disulfied bonds to pull the peptide structure together so it makes the proper conformation to bind the receptor. Same thing is exactly true for IGF-1. GH also has to be recombinant.

 

[Talos]

so the insulin you get at walmart. is that recombinant?

 

[Moppy1]

Yes, insulin is all recombinant. Has to be or it wont work, unless extracted from a biologic source. But recombinant insulin is crazy cheap cause it is no longer on patent and there are dozens of companies that make it in industrial size fermentors. IGF-1 is much harder to produce correctly when made recombinantly, and only 2 companies hold the patent rights for all medical treatments with the legitimate stuff. The only source you can trust is from a protein production company, like Genetech or Amgen or GroPep or similar. Peptide companies are selling you chemically synthesized IGF-1, and it will have NO BIOLOGIC ACTIVITY! Even the slightly more expensive stuff sold as media grade IGF-1 LR3 is bunk. I dont want to say to much, but I work in the profession, everything I have told you is a certainty.

 

[KingBeastMode]

The igf i got seems.to work.well.for.me.. Got some good.pumps n look alot.fuller throughout the day n i started 9 days ago.. And trust.me.i been.on.cy le for a while.so.its not.much.new gains.unless its from.the igf.. Then i just started gh 4 days ago.so that wont give.me.noticable gains for another 3 months.. So.ill test ur theory

 

[Moppy1]

Well KingBeastMode, maybe you got some recombinant IGF-1 LR3 made in E.coli. The best rate for which i could find for industrial or university endeavors, unless from China, is between $300-600 for 1 mg (see links below). That is very expensive! All the peptide companies are selling it for around $60 for 1mg, and this is the stuff that cannot possibly be effective

Recombinant Human IGF1/LR3-IGF-I(MG) Protein, made in E. Coli
LONG® R3 IGF-I human recombinant, expressed in E. coli, Recombinant Analog, suitable for cell culture | Sigma-Aldrich

 

[KingBeastMode]

Well.moppy.i dont trust ur link nor care! It is simply ur misunderdtanding of knowledge.. I will.si.ply show.u results in a few weeks lol.. Haha n.no igf is 60 a pop.. Its about 200

 

[Kane_Red_Machine]

bhawawa says my dog, if you want more igf1 in blood, run trenbolone.

 

[El paja]

So mayb i didn't understand but, what about humalog or humulin doesn't work????

 

[Dreaded Pirate Roberts]

The igf-1Lr3 I used always worked great for me.

 

[KingBeastMode]

The igf-1Lr3 I used always wired great for me.

Ehh moppys just a skeptic man lol

 

[Talos]

why discount what he has to say so easily. why not use an open mind and explore his theory

 

[Talos]

Yes, insulin is all recombinant. Has to be or it wont work, unless extracted from a biologic source. But recombinant insulin is crazy cheap cause it is no longer on patent and there are dozens of companies that make it in industrial size fermentors. IGF-1 is much harder to produce correctly when made recombinantly, and only 2 companies hold the patent rights for all medical treatments with the legitimate stuff. The only source you can trust is from a protein production company, like Genetech or Amgen or GroPep or similar. Peptide companies are selling you chemically synthesized IGF-1, and it will have NO BIOLOGIC ACTIVITY! Even the slightly more expensive stuff sold as media grade IGF-1 LR3 is bunk. I dont want to say to much, but I work in the profession, everything I have told you is a certainty.

So mayb i didn't understand but, what about humalog or humulin doesn't work????

yes, it does work

 

[clman8585]

Didnt rich piana say all this in his igf video

Just wanted to start a discussion about an issue related to efficacy of IGF-1 and related analogs such as Des, LR3, etc. There are hundreds of threads here about IGF-1 giving good gains, especially when used with GH. However, most of us are purchasing IGF-1-LR3 from peptide synthesis companies. However, chemical synthesis of IGF-1 completely lacks the correct disulfide bonds that impart the proper folding of the protein for its activity. IGF-1 and its analogs all require 3 disulfide bonds to generate the correct folded form of the protein, and this can only be accomplished in the body as naturally produced, or in E.coli as a recombinant source, just like how GH is made (recombinantly). Insulin is very similar in structure to IGF-1 and it also is completely inactive if synthesized chemically, it also has to be made recombinantly or extracted from a biologic source (people used to use bovine Insulin before recombinant sources). Recombinant means it is made in bacteria, which have enzymes to create these intramolecular disulfide bonds so the protein folds into the right configuration. All human clinical trials or current treatment of patients in the clinic is performed with recombinant IGF-1 or the LR3 isoform. The synthesized peptide version will have 0 biologic activity. There are countless references in the scientific literature to this effect. Here is one for example:

Role of native disulfide bonds in the structure... [Biochemistry. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI

Thus, IGF-1 does work, but you have to use the recombinant form, which is 10X more expensive compared with chemically synthesized forms. What I find amusing are all the past threads claiming how great IGF-1 LR3 worked for bros, especially in combination with GH, but best I can surmise most were using the version of IGF-1 LR3 from chemical synthesis, which has 0 biologic activity, regardless of dosage.

I would love it if someone could prove me wrong here and show data that the chemically synthesized versions of IGF-1 have biologic activity. Because I would definitely love to purchase the synthesized versions as they are so much more reasonably priced compared with recombinant (in fact, it is nearly impossible to get the recombinant version of IGF-1). Feed back please....

 

[Moppy1]

I am just trying to help bros, dont shoot the messenger. I am 100% certain that IGF-1 will not work if made by chemical synthesis, such as from a peptide company. You can swear all you want that it works for you, but the science is unshakable. It has to be folded correctly with 3 disulfide bonds to generate what is know as the "insulin fold", which is what is required to bind the receptor. There are dozens of studies on this. There was even a big scientific push to generate a version of IGF-1 (and insulin) that does not require cysteines and these 3 disulfide bonds, but it turned out to be impossible. The protein has to be made recombinantly......meaning that IGF-1 and insulin are only folded correctly if generated from a biologic source, like bacteria. All Insulin (humalin, etc) is made from biologic sources, meaning in bacteria (E.coli) in huge fermentors. My guess is that 95% of the IGF analogues we are using as a BB community has 0 activity. Swear it works all you want, but it cant be working through the IGF-1 receptor.

 

[clman8585]

All of these guys that swear up and down that it works, are taking it with other compounds. I tried igf 1lr3 solo with no other compounds from a well know peptide company and it didn't do shit. Not that a "pump" means muxh of anything anyways.

 

[Moppy1]

All of these guys that swear up and down that it works, are taking it with other compounds. I tried igf 1lr3 solo with no other compounds from a well know peptide company and it didn't do shit. Not that a "pump" means muxh of anything anyways.

I agree completely, most are taking their IGF-1 R3 with other compounds. In my profession I treated animals with IGF-1, and it has to be the recombinant source, and even then we require proof of its biologic activity, which these fermenting protein companies provide in the spec sheets. Even receptor grade IGF-1 that is made for human use, can vary in its biologic activity, which has little to do with purity, but everything to do with proper folding and handling. Receptor grade IGF-1 that is used clinically in humans is 100X more expensive that what is available from peptide synthesis companies. Even if you did get the cheaper media grade recombinant IGF-1 R3, it is still 10X more expensive. However, legitimate recombinant IGF-1 R3 is not really available from black market sources in the US, and the Chinese route has not caught on yet. Finally, I can also tell you from work in rodents that recombinant dosages would have to be higher than 50mcg to get any real affect on muscle. Would be upwards of 200mcg per day, maybe even 300mcg. This stuff does work amazing in rodents in generating muscle, especially if used with GH, so what we really need is a reliable chinese connection, like Rips for HGH, So that we can afford it.

 

[clman8585]

So what is the reason these peptide companies even bother making it the wrong way if they knkw it doesn't work?

Why not just put some sterile useless powder in a vial..

If its nonrecumbant will it still pass a igf1 blood test...allowing the user to think its working because its showing up in the blood test?

 

[DreDay187]

So what is the reason these peptide companies even bother making it the wrong way if they knkw it doesn't work?

Why not just put some sterile useless powder in a vial..

If its nonrecumbant will it still pass a igf1 blood test...allowing the user to think its working because its showing up in the blood test?

$$$$. Before Moppy, who else has said something similar? By putting inactive IGF-1 variations in there they can claim it is indeed IGF-1 xxx instead of blatant false advertising.