Why peptides you use should be from a recombinant DNA source and not a (*MUST READ*)

[juced_porkchop]

Why peptides you use should be from a recombinant DNA source and not a chemically synthesized source

I want to bring something up about peptides and peptide quality. I see many people going the cheap route but there is a reason that they may be simply wasting their money. That is why I wanted to start a thread about an issue I think is going on related to efficacy of chemically synthesized IGF and most other peptides vs. recombinantly made ones.

There are many threads on here about IGF-1 and other peps giving good gains and I feel some of it may be BS or the person is having a "placebo affect", while others swear peptides are a complete scam and do nothing at all! (not true)... There might be a reason your igf1 cycle didn't give you jack shit?

Why?

I believe most are purchasing IGF-1 (for an example of a popular peptide being used) made by cheap peptide synthesis companies. However, chemical synthesis of IGF-1 lacks the correct disulfide bonds that cause the proper folding and function in the peptide chain. IGF-1 and its many analogs 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 bacteria as a recombinant source which is similar to how HGH is made (recombinantly).

Insulin is also very similar to the structure of IGF-1 and it also is inactive and/or unstable if synthesized chemically, it has to be made recombinantly or extracted from a biologic source (they used to extract insulin from bovine and HGH from cadavers).
Made with "recombinant DNA" means it is made in bacteria which have data input into it and "fermented" create enzymes that make these intramolecular disulfide bonds so that the protein folds into the right configuration and has the biological function it is supposed to have, having the proper amino chain is NOT enough and it is NOT that simple!

If you look into human clinical trials or current clinical treatment of patients, they now use some of these peptides as part of a therapy protocol and they use recombinant DNA made peptides, not chemically synthesized ones and for good reason.

Here is just one of many studies on how important the correct bonds are, not just the structure>
Role of native disulfide bonds in the structure... [Biochemistry. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI > Role of native disulfide bonds in the structure... [Biochemistry. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI


There are many cheap peptide sellers popping out like CRAZY the last couple years with ridiculously low prices that just doesn't make any sense. So I say if it seems too good to be true, then it probably is!
There is a reason some places are so cheap while others can cost more than 2X or 3X the amount of the cheaper places.

You usually get what you pay for so PLEASE do your research first!

Just because it's pricy doesn't automatically mean its top quality, you still need to research the company.
But if it is really cheap then I would just avoid it because the chances of it being properly made are minimal in this case. IMO

There is a flood of shotty quality peptides coming from china, BE SAFE AND AVOID!

What you want is the more expensive recombinant DNA made peptides! NOT the cheaply made, unstable and largely biologically inactive chemically synthesized peptides!

Many don't even have a clue about all this and that is why I am posting this thread.

Hope it helps someone!


Cheers

 

[tommyguns232]

Why peptides you use should be from a recombinant DNA source and not a chemically synthesized source

I want to bring something up about peptides and peptide quality. I see many people going the cheap route but there is a reason that they may be simply wasting their money. That is why I wanted to start a thread about an issue I think is going on related to efficacy of chemically synthesized IGF and most other peptides vs. recombinantly made ones.

There are many threads on here about IGF-1 and other peps giving good gains and I feel some of it may be BS or the person is having a "placebo affect", while others swear peptides are a complete scam and do nothing at all! (not true)... There might be a reason your igf1 cycle didn't give you jack shit?

Why?

I believe most are purchasing IGF-1 (for an example of a popular peptide being used) made by cheap peptide synthesis companies. However, chemical synthesis of IGF-1 lacks the correct disulfide bonds that cause the proper folding and function in the peptide chain. IGF-1 and its many analogs 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 bacteria as a recombinant source which is similar to how HGH is made (recombinantly).

Insulin is also very similar to the structure of IGF-1 and it also is inactive and/or unstable if synthesized chemically, it has to be made recombinantly or extracted from a biologic source (they used to extract insulin from bovine and HGH from cadavers).
Made with "recombinant DNA" means it is made in bacteria which have data input into it and "fermented" create enzymes that make these intramolecular disulfide bonds so that the protein folds into the right configuration and has the biological function it is supposed to have, having the proper amino chain is NOT enough and it is NOT that simple!

If you look into human clinical trials or current clinical treatment of patients, they now use some of these peptides as part of a therapy protocol and they use recombinant DNA made peptides, not chemically synthesized ones and for good reason.

Here is just one of many studies on how important the correct bonds are, not just the structure>
Role of native disulfide bonds in the structure... [Biochemistry. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI > Role of native disulfide bonds in the structure... [Biochemistry. 1993] - PubMed - NCBI


There are many cheap peptide sellers popping out like CRAZY the last couple years with ridiculously low prices that just doesn't make any sense. So I say if it seems too good to be true, then it probably is!
There is a reason some places are so cheap while others can cost more than 2X or 3X the amount of the cheaper places.

You usually get what you pay for so PLEASE do your research first!

Just because it's pricy doesn't automatically mean its top quality, you still need to research the company.
But if it is really cheap then I would just avoid it because the chances of it being properly made are minimal in this case. IMO

There is a flood of shotty quality peptides coming from china, BE SAFE AND AVOID!

What you want is the more expensive recombinant DNA made peptides! NOT the cheaply made, unstable and largely biologically inactive chemically synthesized peptides!

Many don't even have a clue about all this and that is why I am posting this thread.

Hope it helps someone!


Cheers



PS. This rant came out of an argument I had today via PM about how Peptides are worthless and that I'm an idiot for thinking I got gains from them?.. Yeah, ok.... haha, not my fault you got crappy peptides more than once!! I hope you see this! I won't name names because I am a mature adult...

Nice Post! RUI's thoughts on this: http://www.steroidology.com/forum/p...buy-has-no-biologic-activity.html#post3449957

 

[Oldschoolsavage]

Hey guys I am very new to the site so forgive me if I'm posting/asking this in am ignorant place.
I'm 20 I'm 5-11 and I'm a solid 185 but I seemed to reach a little bit of a stopping point. I've been doing some extensive research on various options such as prohoromones or peptides or maybe even a aas. The more I read if you do it responsibly you can eliminate most of the stereotypical side affects. But being only 20 I don't want to mess my body up.
I give it 110% in the gym and have a great diet plan with some creatine/bcaa/multi v/different types of protein supplements. So what I'm asking is what do you guys think? Pro h route peptide or steroid route? I'm trying to get around 215-225 eventually in my lifting career and needles don't bother me.
I would really appreciate any info or messages on this matter or maybe the proper place to ask. Thanks guys.

 

[budgismuggler]

Im not one of those people that JP has had a private argument with, Ive not afraid to ask and I wont hide behind a private message rant. Im just asking questions so crucify me if it makes you feel better. What JP has posted covers IGF which was already covered in "Why the IGF-1 LR3 we all buy has no biologic activity" post by Moppy1.

Im curious about GHRP and GHRH production because its very difficult to find any studies like the IGF study that has been posted. Has anyone managed to find any freely available studies to show if chemically synthesised i.e. Solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS) of short chained amino acids, GHRPs and GHRHs for example, has any less (or more) biological function / activity on human cells than the previously mentioned recombinant DNA technique.?

Im not trying to offend, I do believe the study on IGF and Recombinant DNA & Im looking for more scientific data backed with scientific evidence. Bottom line is I hope there is such data available showing chemical synth produces a completely inferior GHRP or GHRH product so anyone & everyone can shove it in the face of chemical synthesis producing manufacturers and they all go bust. Surely if people like JP have contacts with Pep manufaturers that use recombinant DNA techniques then Im hoping they can point me in the right direction.

 

[juced_porkchop]

Im not one of those people that JP has had a private argument with, Ive not afraid to ask and I wont hide behind a private message rant. Im just asking questions so crucify me if it makes you feel better. What JP has posted covers IGF which was already covered in "Why the IGF-1 LR3 we all buy has no biologic activity" post by Moppy1.

Im curious about GHRP and GHRH production because its very difficult to find any studies like the IGF study that has been posted. Has anyone managed to find any freely available studies to show if chemically synthesised i.e. Solid-phase peptide synthesis (SPPS) of short chained amino acids, GHRPs and GHRHs for example, has any less (or more) biological function / activity on human cells than the previously mentioned recombinant DNA technique.?

Im not trying to offend, I do believe the study on IGF and Recombinant DNA & Im looking for more scientific data backed with scientific evidence. Bottom line is I hope there is such data available showing chemical synth produces a completely inferior GHRP or GHRH product so anyone & everyone can shove it in the face of chemical synthesis producing manufacturers and they all go bust. Surely if people like JP have contacts with Pep manufaturers that use recombinant DNA techniques then Im hoping they can point me in the right direction.

Hey

When I said IGF1 in the post I was using it as a popular example> " for an example of a popular peptide being used ", but when i say "peptides" I really mean all of them in this area. That is why in the title here I put Peptides, not IGF1. But I guess I could have been clearer in my post, I am sorry.
If you look at GHRP which they are now using in clinical setting, in humans as a way to test for hgh dysfunction, it is recombinant DNA made, and for good reason.
Stick to this kind of synthesis for all peptides if possible and you should be good, as long as the place is also careful with how they handle them, because well made or not, they can still screw em up of they for example , leave it in a hot warehouse out of fridge for months...

No worries, Ask away buddy! That's how we all learn!

 

[juced_porkchop]

you have too look deeper at types of bonds and how the act as studies, not the general chem vs. Red DNA made term to search for. they are out there, not many because its known r DNA is the way to go, no real reason to do much further research in that area, wasted time ans money I guess. there are some though, when i have time and if i come across em ill post up. but I don't see much of the point in that personally.

 

[juced_porkchop]

Hey guys I am very new to the site so forgive me if I'm posting/asking this in am ignorant place.
I'm 20 I'm 5-11 and I'm a solid 185 but I seemed to reach a little bit of a stopping point. I've been doing some extensive research on various options such as prohoromones or peptides or maybe even a aas. The more I read if you do it responsibly you can eliminate most of the stereotypical side affects. But being only 20 I don't want to mess my body up.
I give it 110% in the gym and have a great diet plan with some creatine/bcaa/multi v/different types of protein supplements. So what I'm asking is what do you guys think? Pro h route peptide or steroid route? I'm trying to get around 215-225 eventually in my lifting career and needles don't bother me.
I would really appreciate any info or messages on this matter or maybe the proper place to ask. Thanks guys.

you should make your own thread, but ill answer before i delete the post since this is not the topic here:

you are under 25, using hormones WILL screw up your development, that is for life and you may have life long issues, wait till 24-25 yrs of age. and also proh usually is more toxic then normal known AAS, so no dont go pro-h way just because its OTC, that doesnt make them safer, actually the opposite in many cases.

stick with creatine, taurine, vitd/c and multi vitamin with lots of protein powder.

also google "DC training" its a decent workout style that works, i do a variation of it, more reps and i go for 40min-1hr.

good luck and welcome to forum.
and please learn how to make your own thread, not hijack other peoples.

 

[MeatHead96]

Good post brother, all this IGF-1 on the market now is BS.

 

[juced_porkchop]

Good post brother, all this IGF-1 on the market now is BS.

Not just IGF but many/most of the peptides. I wouldent say all of them are bunk, but a heck of a lot of them are, the majority even, specially recently with all these super cheap peptide/rc shops popping up all over the place. i swear in the last 2yrs i have seen more spring up then the last 10 years! It makes me sick because 99% of them are shit quality and service!

Some people complain about RUI's price, but I don't..... and I ALWAYS highly Rec them! why?
there is a reason it is priced WERE IT SHOULD BE! Because it is made properly, not some cheap chemical china made BS!
Then the noobs come on here saying "dude why it cost 4X more what a rip, screw it ill get it at cheaper place" then the same type of guy comes on bashing peptides all together saying they are worthless!?!?!? Idiots!

PEPTIDES WORK! FACT! < IF they are made and stored properly!

RANT OVER!!!!!!

 

[MeatHead96]

Not just IGF but many/most of the peptides. I wouldent say all of them are bunk, but a heck of a lot of them are, the majority even, specially recently with all these super cheap peptide/rc shops popping up all over the place. i swear in the last 2yrs i have seen more spring up then the last 10 years! It makes me sick because 99% of them are shit quality and service!

Some people complain about RUI's price, but I don't..... and I ALWAYS highly Rec them! why?
there is a reason it is priced WERE IT SHOULD BE! Because it is made properly, not some cheap chemical china made BS!
Then the noobs come on here saying "dude why it cost 4X more what a rip, screw it ill get it at cheaper place" then the same type of guy comes on bashing peptides all together saying they are worthless!?!?!? Idiots!

PEPTIDES WORK! FACT! < IF they are made and stored properly!

RANT OVER!!!!!!

Right on, I'm more of an HGH guy now. Peptides def do work if you get a good place. Only pep I'm using atm is melanotan II

 

[El paja]

Me im no a fan of peptide i love the real deal because is like you said you can spend a lot of money in something that is not worthy on less you find a good source with real good stuff

 

[budgismuggler]

you have too look deeper at types of bonds and how the act as studies, not the general chem vs. Red DNA made term to search for. they are out there, not many because its known r DNA is the way to go, no real reason to do much further research in that area, wasted time ans money I guess. there are some though, when i have time and if i come across em ill post up. but I don't see much of the point in that personally.

Theres plenty of reasons for further research on the whole chem v rDNA synthesis as well as good reasons they should be published. A couple of reasons would be to see if GHRPs and GHRHs can be made more efficiently, faster and cheaper and therefor more available to people in countries that aren't as economically advantaged as countries like the USA. Hell, thats why the pharmaceutical industry starting finding generics which in the last couple of decades has helped cash strapped societies all over the world better their health.

Or on the flip side as Ive mentioned, making research results available and well published would enlighten the BB industry on these "backyard" peptide makers and curve the cash that ppl are apparently wasting on inferior products towards manufacturers of ethical and superior produced peptides. Lets say 2 billion dollars per year is wasted on bogus products. Wouldn't you want ppl to know about the invalidity of said bogus peptide production so they can make an informed decision and spend their 2 billion dollars on proper peps which in turn makes the Pep industry stronger not to mention the body builders and the like from better results.

Not everyone is born with the knowledge or have access to ppl that have been researching for years. Some people live in countries where peps are illegal to have in possession without a script and a forced to use the black market or what ever means they have to obtain peps & some ppl are lucky to live in countries where peptides, HGH, Steroids are a freedom of choice and not frowned upon by the general public.

 

[budgismuggler]

and needless to say but I will anyway, any company can claim there peptides are made via rDNA. The industry is so unregulated anyone could claim anything so how would anyone know without trialling or going to their factory and watching the process***8230;

Yeah the chook eggs at my local grocer are organic !! HTF would I know without going to the farm and seeing for myself.

 

[juced_porkchop]

Me im no a fan of peptide i love the real deal because is like you said you can spend a lot of money in something that is not worthy on less you find a good source with real good stuff

alot of fake or crap hgh out there also, its a coin flip IMO. I think its easier to get legit peps than hgh because atleast with peps there is the "research" loophole in most countries= less bs IMO.
I love both, but i miss my hgh... will have a run soon, its been a while... :'-(

 

[Moppy1]

Juced!!! You nailed this discussion!!! I completely agree and can tell you it is 100% correct...and IGF-1 made by a peptide synthesis company will never work. Has to be recombinant (made in E. coli like HGH), as we have discussed earlier!! But I am so glad you have spread the word. BBs need to know this. Not only is it a waste of money otherwise, but it also is a danger for generating an immune response to IGF-1.

Anyways, you are right on the money with this one! And without giving away too much about my profession, I can guarantee everyone out there that Juced is 100% correct.

However, some of the linear peptides that are synthesized by the peptide companies dont need to be folded and hence will completely work in the body (MT-2, PT-141, some of the GHRPs, etc).

Not just IGF but many/most of the peptides. I wouldent say all of them are bunk, but a heck of a lot of them are, the majority even, specially recently with all these super cheap peptide/rc shops popping up all over the place. i swear in the last 2yrs i have seen more spring up then the last 10 years! It makes me sick because 99% of them are shit quality and service!

Some people complain about RUI's price, but I don't..... and I ALWAYS highly Rec them! why?
there is a reason it is priced WERE IT SHOULD BE! Because it is made properly, not some cheap chemical china made BS!
Then the noobs come on here saying "dude why it cost 4X more what a rip, screw it ill get it at cheaper place" then the same type of guy comes on bashing peptides all together saying they are worthless!?!?!? Idiots!

PEPTIDES WORK! FACT! < IF they are made and stored properly!

RANT OVER!!!!!!

 

[budgismuggler]

However, some of the linear peptides that are synthesized by the peptide companies dont need to be folded and hence will completely work in the body (MT-2, PT-141, some of the GHRPs, etc).

with regards to your comments, are you saying that chemically synthesised "linear peptides" could work just as effectively in the body as DNA recon synthesised peptides because unlike IGF the linear peptide proteins dont need to be folded in such a way for the body to effectively use them.

 

[juced_porkchop]

with regards to your comments, are you saying that chemically synthesised "linear peptides" could work just as effectively in the body as DNA recon synthesised peptides because unlike IGF the linear peptide proteins dont need to be folded in such a way for the body to effectively use them.

Its possible, but i know a couple places that stick to r-DNA for all the peptides to ensure quality. but yess the more simple the peptide the more likely chemical made will still be effective.
To me though i would like knowing that its all r-DNA, but thats just opinion on my part ;-)

 

[sarnold285]

Its possible, but i know a couple places that stick to r-DNA for all the peptides to ensure quality. but yess the more simple the peptide the more likely chemical made will still be effective.
To me though i would like knowing that its all r-DNA, but thats just opinion on my part ;-)

Like what peptides are you talking about when you say the more simple ones. Would GHRP-2 and cjc 1295 fall into that catagory. And the reason they dont need to be folded as you say is because they are naturally more bioavailable?

 

[juced_porkchop]

Like what peptides are you talking about when you say the more simple ones. Would GHRP-2 and cjc 1295 fall into that catagory. And the reason they dont need to be folded as you say is because they are naturally more bioavailable?

some peptide chains are shorter then others. google any peptide name you are curious about and look at the amino chain (wiki usually has the chain listed along with the name, but wiki is not always 100% accurate), the shorter the chain the "more simple" but i believe all should be made with r-DNA to ensure high quality.
The shorter and depending on the types of bonds it may be possible to have it work still. I cant give you a simple answer, not all peps are the same, even ones in the same class differ. Stick with r-DNA made peps and take the worry away.
I would care less how short the pep is, id want r-DNA made IMO

RUI uses r-DNA so i stick mostly with them.

 

[meatmonkey]

Juiced, I'm interested in rui's igf des. I'm a long time hgh user, but am new to peptides. I've read that pinning 20mcg of lrIGF-1 post workout i.m. Post workout is the way to go, but am curious about this:
rui-products.com/peptides/igf-des-1mg-149.html
Is this a better way to go than the lrIGF-1? Last, what do you recommend for mixing it, and dosing? Thanks!