GHRP-2: Chemcial Composition/Formula Differences

P

pharmbiak

Bluelight Crew
Joined
Nov 13, 2014
Messages
75
Okay so, not sure if this has been covered here or not yet but I can't seem to find any info on the web about this discrepancy. Avid fan of peptides (GHRP-6/2, IGF, MGF, Mod GRF 1-29, etc.) so I've been looking at ordering some of them in bulk; GHRP-2 in-particular. However, here's the issue I'm having: As per CAS number searches, there are two different chemical compounds that come up when searching for GHRP-2. One compound is what most suppliers offer, that is: C45H55N9O6 with MW: 817.974 g/M CAS#: 158861-67-7, sequence: H-D-Ala-D-2-Nal-Ala-Trp-D-Phe-Lys-NH2. The other has the same CAS#: 158861-67-7, but the chemical formula for this compound is as follows: C42H50N8O5 with a MW: 746.897 g/M and sequence: D-ala-B-(2-naphthyl)-D-ala-trp-D-phe-*lys amide. Just for completeness sake, GHRP-6 has the molecular formula C46H56N12O6 with a MW: 872.444 g/M, sequence: L-histidyl-D-tryptophyl-L-alanyl-L-tryptophyl-D-phenylalanyl-L-Lysinamide.

Obviously, unless I'm completely missing something, these are two different compounds being marketed or sold under the same name depending on the supplier. I have been using peptides for quite awhile but have never noticed this discrepancy until recently when I started looking purchasing in bulk. Just curious if anyone has any info regarding which compound is correct and/or why there would be two different chemical compositions for the same peptide unless this is just an example where the manufacturer is using two different bonding agents/ions to form the salt - I'm not sure.

Maybe this will help elucidate why some people claim they're receiving "bunk" peps if it's actually two different chemicals altogether.

Hope you guys can help me out.

Thanks!
 
pharmbiak said:
Okay so, not sure if this has been covered here or not yet but I can't seem to find any info on the web about this discrepancy. Avid fan of peptides (GHRP-6/2, IGF, MGF, Mod GRF 1-29, etc.) so I've been looking at ordering some of them in bulk; GHRP-2 in-particular. However, here's the issue I'm having: As per CAS number searches, there are two different chemical compounds that come up when searching for GHRP-2. One compound is what most suppliers offer, that is: . The other has the same CAS#: 158861-67-7, but the chemical formula for this compound is as follows: C42H50N8O5 with a MW: 746.897 g/M and sequence: D-ala-B-(2-naphthyl)-D-ala-trp-D-phe-*lys amide. Just for completeness sake, GHRP-6 has the molecular formula C46H56N12O6 with a MW: 872.444 g/M, sequence: L-histidyl-D-tryptophyl-L-alanyl-L-tryptophyl-D-phenylalanyl-L-Lysinamide.

Obviously, unless I'm completely missing something, these are two different compounds being marketed or sold under the same name depending on the supplier. I have been using peptides for quite awhile but have never noticed this discrepancy until recently when I started looking purchasing in bulk. Just curious if anyone has any info regarding which compound is correct and/or why there would be two different chemical compositions for the same peptide unless this is just an example where the manufacturer is using two different bonding agents/ions to form the salt - I'm not sure.

Maybe this will help elucidate why some people claim they're receiving "bunk" peps if it's actually two different chemicals altogether.

Hope you guys can help me out.

Thanks!
Click to expand...


C42H50N8O5 with a MW: 746.897............. Molar mass of C42H50N8O5 is 746.8970 g/mol

C46H56N12O6 with a MW: 872.444........... Molar mass of C46H56N12O6 is 873.0136 g/mol

http://www.chemicalbook.com/CASEN_158861-67-7.htm
D-ala-B-(2-naphthyl)-D-ala-trp-D-phe-*lys amide
Pralmorelin [INN]; D-Alanyl-3-(2-naphthalenyl)-D-alanyl-L-alanyl-L-tryptophyl-D-phenylalanyl-L-lysinamide; GHRP 2; Growth hormone-releasing peptide 2; KP 102; KP-102; Pralmorelin; UNII-E6S6E1F19M; L-Lysinamide, D-alanyl-3-(2-naphthalenyl)-D-alanyl-L-alanyl-L-tryptophyl-D-phenylalanyl-; GHRP-2; D-alanyl-3-naphthalen-2-yl-D-alanyl-L-alanyl-L-tryptophyl-D-phenylalanyl-L-lysinamide
C45H55N9O6
817.9749


Chemical Name:Pralmorelin
Molecular Formula:C42H50N8O5
Formula Weight:746.91
CAS No.:158861-67-7


http://www.chemicalbook.com/ProdSupplierGWCB1104514_EN.htm
 
Last edited:
Right... Pralmorelin and GHRP-2 are, for all intents and purposes the same compound as per NCBI and studies on pubmed.
Regardless, this doesn't help clarify why there's s difference in MW and chemical formula for two compounds which are supposed to be the same thing.
The point is that, as you mentioned the chem book MW for GHRP-2 is 817u and change, but this doesn't explain the manufacturers claiming to sell GHRP-2 with a MW of 746u, 2 less Carbons, 5 less Hydrogens, 1 less Nitrogen and 1 less Oxygen. Search the molecular formula for the compound that has a MW of ~746u and you'll find results stating that this is indeed GHRP-2 as well.

Edit** MW ---> meant to delete the g/mol and put u/amu. That's what I get for doing three things at once.
 
Last edited:
Genetic Freak said:
Things have moved forward in recent years, GHRP-2 or Ipamorelin with modified GRF(1-29) is the way to go..!!!
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If you check the research on peptides, there's plenty of peer-reviewed publications with data supporting a significant elevation in GH levels after administration of Growth Hormone Releasing Peptides in conjunction with Mod GRF 1-29 (a Growth Hormone Releasing Hormone mimetic).
 
ritch said:
peptides are garbage man, don't waste your money on them...
Click to expand...

I'll refrain from publicly scathing you, but as a molecular neurobiologist at one of the top research institutions in America, I assure you that your statement is incorrect. Please do your research before posting nothing more than an opinion fueled by ignorance and filled with misinformation. Also, if you are going to contribute to a thread, make sure your comment pertains to the topic at hand; your opinion on the effectiveness of the aforementioned compounds is entirely irrelevant to the original inquiry.

Cheers :)
 
pharmbiak said:
I'll refrain from publicly scathing you, but as a molecular neurobiologist at one of the top research institutions in America, I assure you that your statement is incorrect. Please do your research before posting nothing more than an opinion fueled by ignorance and filled with misinformation. Also, if you are going to contribute to a thread, make sure your comment pertains to the topic at hand; your opinion on the effectiveness of the aforementioned compounds is entirely irrelevant to the original inquiry.

Cheers :)
Click to expand...

Hi ritch, thank you for posting your opinions, and welcome to SD. We are a small community here, and like to treat all members with respect..
I hope you will respect this and adjust to a more friendly manner the future....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Genetic Freak said:
Things have moved forward in recent years, GHRP-2 or Ipamorelin with modified GRF(1-29) is the way to go..!!!
Click to expand...

I used g2 with mod grf and like the others, the results sucked.
If they were the hot item they were made out to me years ago, we would all be on them...
 
ritch said:
Mod-Edit...
Click to expand...


For starters, until you can afford to get a nano-drop 2000, and/or High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) machine from a reputable manufacturer like Thermo Scientific/Perkin Elmer or the likes (both of which I have access to), you honestly have no idea what you're actually using. There are plenty of chemicals that mimic the effects of GH augmenting substances yet do absolutely nothing to actually increase GH levels. Whether or not you're actually getting pure GHRP or Mod GRF 1-29, obviously, is retailer specific. Unfortunately, creating compounds that mimic the side-effects of GH enhancing substances is quite straightforward. Therefore, simply stating that you knew you had quality peptides from the "sides" would be a flawed argument.

The point is, peer reviewed publications by world class research facilities and institutions show significant elevations in GH levels in response to these peptides. The difference between your results and the ones they show (and have proven multiple times over) is the quality of research materials (most institutions use Sigma-Aldrich for chemical supply, with products guaranteed via HPLC at molecular biology grade purity >98.5%) and equipment used to detect changes in measured variables. Anyone can create a lyophilized powder, put it in a vial, and label it GHRP-2. Why do you think quality research chemical suppliers such as Sigma charge ~$141.50 for 5 mg of GHRP-6 and ~$569.00 for 50 mg of Hexarelin? Quality isn't cheap.

If, however, you'd like to hold your independent, unverified, undocumented and unknown mystery powder pseudo-research results in higher esteem than validated conclusions yielded from an amalgamation of research studies at prominent institutions and universities across the globe that employ extremely well-educated experts in their respective fields with over 10 years of experience, that's your decision. Maybe it's just me, but I prefer to base my opinions on fact.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mod-Edit.... We like to treat all members here with respect, thank you.. :)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
pharmbiak said:
I'll refrain from publicly scathing you, but as a molecular neurobiologist at one of the top research institutions in America, I assure you that your statement is incorrect. Please do your research before posting nothing more than an opinion fueled by ignorance and filled with misinformation. Also, if you are going to contribute to a thread, make sure your comment pertains to the topic at hand; your opinion on the effectiveness of the aforementioned compounds is entirely irrelevant to the original inquiry.

Cheers :)
Click to expand...

We are indebted to have someone of your calibre here in SD, a very big welcome, I do hope you will stick around and share your knowledge..

GF.....
 
ritch said:
I used g2 with mod grf and like the others, the results sucked.
If they were the hot item they were made out to me years ago, we would all be on them...
Click to expand...

I might suggest, what you had might not have been what you thought you had....
 
I've used ghrp 2 and 6 with decent success. Great sleep, better mood, mild water retention, decrease in body fat over a period of time, and seemed to accelerate the healing of my hand
 
Genetic Freak said:
We are indebted to have someone of your calibre here in SD, a very big welcome, I do hope you will stick around and share your knowledge..

GF.....
Click to expand...

Thank you for the warm welcome; very grateful to be here. Academia can only teach you so much; to fully comprehend subjects from a holistic perspective it's always best to envelop yourself in the community - BL does a great service by connecting us all. I wish there were more opportunities to actually study performance enhancing substances with true academic scrutiny. However due to the, shall we say... "ethically questionable"... nature of such endeavors and ever-present "Big Brother" with it's legislation and legality issues, people like us that share such a passion and interest in this area of research have been, and unfortunately will be for quite some time, deprived of truth. It's amazing the extent to which propaganda, false claims, and flat-out lies from the government or people on a personal power-trip can hinder progress and knowledge. Regardless, happy to be aboard and looking forward to learning something new.

Cheers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top