cjc-1295 urgent need amino sequence

[brian123]

ive been given two (seemingly ) different sequences for this peptide from two differnt peptide manufactures-

which one is correct or are both correct?

Tyr-DAla-Asp-Ala-Ile-Phe-Thr-Gln-Ser-Tyr-Arg-Lys-Val-Leu-Ala-Gln-Leu-Ser-Ala-Arg-Lys-Leu-Leu-Gln-Asp-Ile-Leu-Ser-Arg-Lys(Maleimidopropionyl)-NH2

and

YADAIFTQSYRKVLAQLSARKLLQDILSR-NH2

need someone to point me to the right info, expert or forum

cheers

 

[agent8]

I think the unadaulterated N-Terminal CJC is the one that is refered in medical articles. What if you PEGed. the better one?

ive been given two (seemingly ) different sequences for this peptide from two differnt peptide manufactures-

which one is correct or are both correct?

Tyr-DAla-Asp-Ala-Ile-Phe-Thr-Gln-Ser-Tyr-Arg-Lys-Val-Leu-Ala-Gln-Leu-Ser-Ala-Arg-Lys-Leu-Leu-Gln-Asp-Ile-Leu-Ser-Arg-Lys(Maleimidopropionyl)-NH2

and

YADAIFTQSYRKVLAQLSARKLLQDILSR-NH2

need someone to point me to the right info, expert or forum

cheers

 

[Bobaslaw]

ive been given two (seemingly ) different sequences for this peptide from two differnt peptide manufactures-

which one is correct or are both correct?

Tyr-DAla-Asp-Ala-Ile-Phe-Thr-Gln-Ser-Tyr-Arg-Lys-Val-Leu-Ala-Gln-Leu-Ser-Ala-Arg-Lys-Leu-Leu-Gln-Asp-Ile-Leu-Ser-Arg-Lys(Maleimidopropionyl)-NH2

and

YADAIFTQSYRKVLAQLSARKLLQDILSR-NH2

need someone to point me to the right info, expert or forum

cheers

The 1st one is correct. The 2nd one is just a slightly altered GHRH (GRF 1-29), with the proper tetrasubstitutions in the amino sequence, BUT missing the Lysine Linker at position "30" along with the Maleimodopropionic Acid (aka DAC - Drug Affinity Complex).

CJC-1295 is a modified version of standard GRF 1-29 with D-Ala, Gln, Ala, and Leu substitutions at positions 2, 8, 15, and 27 respectively (hilighted in red above). There is a Lysine "linker" at position "30" with along with the Maleimodoproprionic acid (DAC complex hilighted in blue above).

Invalid Link Removed


Note: Be wary of the CJC that is out there as there are peptide manufacturers that are passing off a tetrasubstituted GRF 1-29 and calling it "CJC-1295". Some may doing this out of sheer ignorance, and others may be just because it is cheaper to manufacture without the additional DAC. Even the middle men retailers that source from the manufacturers may not be aware of this.
The best thing is to ask for a COA and confirm directly that this is the proper tetrasubstituted version which has the DAC complex as listed above.
BTW, the tetrasubstitutions in the GRF 1-29 do extend the halflife slightly (minutes, possibly an hour, BUT NOT days). It is the DAC that is responsible for the ability to bind to albumin and increase the halflife up to approx 5-8 days (as per the studies).

The plus side of DatBTrue's protocol with respect to the above is that you will still most likely have great benefit using standard GHRH (GRF) in a 3Xday dosing protocol. Thats 3 big pulses added to your daily release pattern.
The people that dose high doses 1-2 times per week (ex. 1mg 2x/week) will most likely not have any worthwhile results if in fact using GRF. This is because each dose of GRF is equal to one GH pulse, and even at 1-2mg of standard GRF, there is only so much of the dose that can be utilized within the short time frame that it is active. In short, 2 good added pulses per week will hardly do much at all.

This is some food for though...

PS- This issue was originally brought to light by DatBTrue and I have been finding it to be quite a prevaent issue, once you start posing the question and demanding confirmation from various sources.

Take Care.

 

[frozencore12]

ive been given two (seemingly ) different sequences for this peptide from two differnt peptide manufactures-

which one is correct or are both correct?

Tyr-DAla-Asp-Ala-Ile-Phe-Thr-Gln-Ser-Tyr-Arg-Lys-Val-Leu-Ala-Gln-Leu-Ser-Ala-Arg-Lys-Leu-Leu-Gln-Asp-Ile-Leu-Ser-Arg-Lys(Maleimidopropionyl)-NH2

and

YADAIFTQSYRKVLAQLSARKLLQDILSR-NH2

need someone to point me to the right info, expert or forum

cheers

eactly the same sequences other than the inversion of the stereochemistry of the ala-2 residue and the lysine terminal modification which may alter (likely decrease) pharmacokinetic rates.

 

[Bobaslaw]

eactly the same sequences other than the inversion of the stereochemistry of the ala-2 residue and the lysine terminal modification which may alter (likely decrease) pharmacokinetic rates.

"Likely Decrease"!?!

Make sure you understand what you are talking about before making such a deceiving statement to people who actually need to know there is a great difference here.

The 2 compounds are vastly different from one another with respect to their window of biological activity.

Read the post above yours. The DAC complex is completely missing in the 2nd representation which makes a HUGE difference. Without the Lys linker/Maleimodopropionic Acid complex there is NO ability to bind to albumin. This is the main alteration that gives CJC-1295 (DAC-GHRH)its 5-8 day extended halflife. The 4 amino substitutions to standard GRF 1-29 would insignificantly decrease degradation of the peptide and increase its window of biological activity. We are talking about minutes over standard GRF 1-29.

 

[java568]

The 1st one is correct. The 2nd one is just a slightly altered GHRH (GRF 1-29), with the proper tetrasubstitutions in the amino sequence, BUT missing the Lysine Linker at position "30" along with the Maleimodopropionic Acid (aka DAC - Drug Affinity Complex).

CJC-1295 is a modified version of standard GRF 1-29 with D-Ala, Gln, Ala, and Leu substitutions at positions 2, 8, 15, and 27 respectively (hilighted in red above). There is a Lysine "linker" at position "30" with along with the Maleimodoproprionic acid (DAC complex hilighted in blue above).

Invalid Link Removed


Note: Be wary of the CJC that is out there as there are peptide manufacturers that are passing off a tetrasubstituted GRF 1-29 and calling it "CJC-1295". Some may doing this out of sheer ignorance, and others may be just because it is cheaper to manufacture without the additional DAC. Even the middle men retailers that source from the manufacturers may not be aware of this.
The best thing is to ask for a COA and confirm directly that this is the proper tetrasubstituted version which has the DAC complex as listed above.
BTW, the tetrasubstitutions in the GRF 1-29 do extend the halflife slightly (minutes, possibly an hour, BUT NOT days). It is the DAC that is responsible for the ability to bind to albumin and increase the halflife up to approx 5-8 days (as per the studies).

The plus side of DatBTrue's protocol with respect to the above is that you will still most likely have great benefit using standard GHRH (GRF) in a 3Xday dosing protocol. Thats 3 big pulses added to your daily release pattern.
The people that dose high doses 1-2 times per week (ex. 1mg 2x/week) will most likely not have any worthwhile results if in fact using GRF. This is because each dose of GRF is equal to one GH pulse, and even at 1-2mg of standard GRF, there is only so much of the dose that can be utilized within the short time frame that it is active. In short, 2 good added pulses per week will hardly do much at all.

This is some food for though...

PS- This issue was originally brought to light by DatBTrue and I have been finding it to be quite a prevaent issue, once you start posing the question and demanding confirmation from various sources.

Take Care.

How important is the word "Maleimidopropionyl"? I understand that is the DAC Complex, but if a manufacturer leaves that word out, does that mean that it does contain such a complex or is it often assumed?

This:
Tyr-D-Ala-Asp-Ala-Ile-Phe-Thr-Gln-Ser-Tyr-Arg-Lys-Val-Leu-Ala
-Gln-Leu-Ser-Ala-Arg-Lys-Leu-Leu-Gln-Asp-Ile-Leu-Ser-Arg-NH 2
Is just altered GHRH?

 

[Bobaslaw]

How important is the word "Maleimidopropionyl"? I understand that is the DAC Complex, but if a manufacturer leaves that word out, does that mean that it does contain such a complex or is it often assumed?

This:
Tyr-D-Ala-Asp-Ala-Ile-Phe-Thr-Gln-Ser-Tyr-Arg-Lys-Val-Leu-Ala
-Gln-Leu-Ser-Ala-Arg-Lys-Leu-Leu-Gln-Asp-Ile-Leu-Ser-Arg-NH 2
Is just altered GHRH?

Yes, the above represents tertasubstituted (GHRH) GRF1-29, without the DAC. This is NOT a representation of CJC, regardles of what is actually being sold.

Never assume such a thing, especially when it's written in stone. I have had direct responses from various places regarding their "improper" presented sequence nomenclature.

When questioned, some sources directly reply that they IN FACT are selling a tetrasubbstiuted GRF 1-29 represented as the "2nd" amino sequence listed by the OP, as well as in your question above. They are not being deceitful in their reply which leads me to believe they are ignorant about this issue.

This leads to other encounters where one chinese manufacturer directly stated that they "used to" sell "the tertasubstituted "version" of CJC WITHOUT the DAC, BUT now do sell the DAC version. This statement is scary and confirms the cluelessness at to what CJC-1295 is. There are NO vesions of CJC without the DAC. The DAC is what makes CJC what it is.

One place mentioned that they cannot present the full CJC amino sequence depicting the DAC complex and have it represented as tetrasubstituted GRF 1-29 because CJC (The DAC actually) is trademarked/patented and this would be illegal.

Another reply I received said that what was being sold is in fact CJC which does have the DAC confirmed, however, their COA still only showed tetrasubbed GRF 1-29... So go figure. You have not clue even after you get the answers you think you got. Trust is important here.

The POINT:

TRUST and DUE DILIGENCE! Period. Ask these questions DIRECTLY before you buy anything and demand an explaination if the presented COA nomenclature does not represent the actual CJC compound. Copy the graphic from my post above and supply it to whoever you need answers from.

PS- Do not PM me for any source info discussed in this post. Do your own research please. You have as much opportunity to ask these same questions just as as i did.

Take Care.

 

[datBtrue]

How important is the word "Maleimidopropionyl"? I understand that is the DAC Complex, but if a manufacturer leaves that word out, does that mean that it does contain such a complex or is it often assumed?

Its funny. When I first came across this type of behavior I though the same thing. Maybe its just implied...nobody would refer to the compound w/o the DAC as "CJC-1295" unless it was implied.

As Bobaslaw said WRONG!!

 

[datBtrue]

The plus side of DatBTrue's protocol with respect to the above is that you will still most likely have great benefit using standard GHRH (GRF) in a 3Xday dosing protocol.

"Since GH is released in a pulsatile manner and a higher level of GH is observed between 15 and 30 min after subcutaneous administration of GH-RH analogues, hydrolysis by trypsin-like enzymes could not affect the result of stimulation." - Potent Trypsin-resistant hGH-RH Analogues, JAN IZDEBSKI, J. Peptide Sci. 10: 524–529 (2004)​

The analog in this study resisted degradation for 30 minutes. The quote implies that if your analog can last 30 minutes it has tapped out the potential for a single pulse.

Since another pulse won't be generated for about 2.5 - 3 hours analogs that last more than 30 minutes upto 3 hours are not any more beneficial.

You would need an analog that kept growth hormone releasing hormone around beyond 3 hours to have it trigger a second pulse.

Otherwise dosing the 30 minute analog every 3 hours will maximize GH output OR you could just use an analog such as CJC-1295 which lasts for many days and will trigger 8 or so GH pulses a day for several days on a single dose.

By-the-way Bob thanks for posting all of this info in this thread...if for no reason other than you named the amino acid substitution positions and the times I need this info I am always trying to figure out which folder or study that info is on in my archive.

 

[Bobaslaw]

By-the-way Bob thanks for posting all of this info in this thread...if for no reason other than you named the amino acid substitution positions and the times I need this info I am always trying to figure out which folder or study that info is on in my archive.

Actually, Dat, thank You for bringing this issue to light and sparking my interest to dig deeper

People need to know that just because they assume they are taking CJC-1295, DOES NOT mean they are.
Your time, effort, and devotion to the asounding research you have made ALL rides on the results people will achieve with the "mystery substance" they think they have procured.
Talk about the weakest possible link in this whole protocol for crying out loud.:aargh:

Being aware this fact is of key importance for all of us!

Take Care.

 

[datBtrue]

....

 

[TripDog]

Bobaslaw and Datbtrue know their sh*t about peptides. I will say that!

 

[mooch2321]

:think: yeah....um wow...you two arent f@ckin around are ya?

 

[chriswhat]

This is also what I am finding, most of these Chinese manufacturers are sending me sequences missing the Lysine "linker" at position "30". They have the other substitutions but not that one. They are also saying purity is at a minimum 95%, when many sources are claiming to sell >98% Kind of makes you wonder. Thanks a lot fellas.

 

[Bobaslaw]

This is also what I am finding, most of these Chinese manufacturers are sending me sequences missing the Lysine "linker" at position "30". They have the other substitutions but not that one. They are also saying purity is at a minimum 95%, when many sources are claiming to sell >98% Kind of makes you wonder. Thanks a lot fellas.

Chris, please keep us informed about your lab results when they come back (if that is still happening). I am definitely more than curious.

Take Care.

 

[chriswhat]

Should be any day now. I will post them up as soon a I get them. I will probably need help to decipher them anyway, although I guess the lab will give me a synopsis.

 

[datBtrue]

My name has been inappropriately use by chriswhat in relation to the legitimacy of a peptide.

There is no connection in any way, shape or form between chriswhat and Datbtrue.

 

[papapumpsd]

My name has been inappropriately use by chriswhat in relation to the legitimacy of a peptide.

There is no connection in any way, shape or form between chriswhat and Datbtrue.

What? Where?:think:

 

[chriswhat]

My name has been inappropriately use by chriswhat in relation to the legitimacy of a peptide.

There is no connection in any way, shape or form between chriswhat and Datbtrue.

This is true, I simply quoted another member on here (with permission)that mentioned Dats' protocol in the quote. The information did not come from Dat.

 

[frozencore12]

"Likely Decrease"!?!

Make sure you understand what you are talking about before making such a deceiving statement to people who actually need to know there is a great difference here.

The 2 compounds are vastly different from one another with respect to their window of biological activity.

Read the post above yours. The DAC complex is completely missing in the 2nd representation which makes a HUGE difference. Without the Lys linker/Maleimodopropionic Acid complex there is NO ability to bind to albumin. This is the main alteration that gives CJC-1295 (DAC-GHRH)its 5-8 day extended halflife. The 4 amino substitutions to standard GRF 1-29 would insignificantly decrease degradation of the peptide and increase its window of biological activity. We are talking about minutes over standard GRF 1-29.

i understand that, yet for all i know the guy is using a slow drip iv bag.. i am wondering how the effect would be altered other than the half life.

 

[datBtrue]

i understand that, yet for all i know the guy is using a slow drip iv bag.. i am wondering how the effect would be altered other than the half life.

Concentration is important. Pulsation, which is the coordinated action of the somatotrophs to cross communicate, self organize a 3d structure and coordinate GH secretion seems to be designed to secrete a concentrated amount of GH into plasma. Concentrated (as opposed to diluted) GH in plasma reach target tissue more readily and importantly act on more receptors simultaneously. This will induce stong intracellular signaling which will mediate growth events w/in the cell.

This concentration also means that the "off" times are truly off with no/little GH dribbling around which could impact intracellular signaling resets, such as Stat5b & ERK (although for this pathway absence of GH is a requisite but is insufficient in and of itself to trigger reset).

So perhaps CJC-1295 because it raises the GH troughs is akin to your "drip-bag" analogy and GRF(1-29) modified to extend the half life to 30 minutes or so results in on/off concentrated signaling.

Which is better?

 

[Bobaslaw]

Which is better?

Just some thoughs:

I will always go with what the "body" realized is better in its evolutionary process. Yep, the body's own hands on applied research project that has long preceded our own...

Thus, to me, what is closer to mimicing the bodies natural pulsitility, especially with respect to the proposed significance of "trough down time" for optimal pathway resensitization?

GHRH 1-44 or GRF 1-29 and the like. Same thing the body decided on (GHRH)...

But, a specific chosen compound does not a protocol make...
Convenience of application is also there to determine the compromises...

I think GRF multiple times(pulses) a day would be optimal, but not really convenient unless pumbertot procures a really slick programable micro osmotic IV infusion pump

So going by this, we are here just fine tuning for the best results. Trying to milk everything to the greatest extent.
This does not mean that someone could not benefit from CJC 2 times per week if convenience is slightly more important that tuning for bit more horsepower, or a few more mhz... May not be optimal or most efficient for the physiological response aspect, but may be optimal for living your "life" first and foremost and getting some benefit on the side...

The main thing is to have the PROPER compound for the protocol chosen. If you plan to go with 2 x per week of CJC, you better make damn sure what you are getting, because GRF will definitely be wasted in that setup....

Take Care.