The Peptide CommonsEst. May 2024
Independent. We sell nothing and are affiliated with no manufacturer or pharmacy. Every moderation action is logged in public
Practical reference · maintained document

CJC-1295 — reference

Maintainers: blank_injection, g.haaland, bench_notes Last updated 12 July 2026 Next review due 7 January 2027 522 words · 6 revisions
Sourced from a discussion. This document was promoted out of Tesamorelin has an approved indication — what that changes about the evidence, in Secretagogues & GH axis. That topic links back here, and corrections raised there flow into this page.

CJC-1295: ghrh analogue (research use only), approximate mass 3647.2 Da (without DAC), Minutes without DAC; days with DAC half-life. Identity, evidence base, analytical considerations and limitations.

Scope

A maintained identity and evidence reference for CJC-1295. It is deliberately narrow: what the molecule is, what has been published about it, and what an analytical report on it can and cannot establish. It contains no dosing recommendations and is not advice about anyone's care.

Where a figure is approximate this page says so. Where something is unknown, it says that instead of filling the gap.

Identity

FieldValue
ClassGHRH analogue (research use only)
Approximate molecular mass≈ 3647.2 Da (without DAC)
Elimination half-lifeMinutes without DAC; days with DAC
Route and scheduleSubcutaneous in research settings
Regulatory statusResearch use only

Masses quoted here are approximate and are given for orientation when reading an analytical report. For a mass-error calculation, use the exact monoisotopic mass computed from the elemental composition rather than a rounded figure from a reference page, including this one.

What it is

CJC-1295 is a modified growth-hormone-releasing hormone analogue. The critical distinction is between the version bearing a drug affinity complex, which binds albumin covalently and persists for days, and the version without it, which does not.

Supplier labelling frequently does not make that distinction clearly, and the two products have completely different pharmacokinetics. Confirming which you have is a documentation question, not an analytical one — the masses differ, so it is checkable.

Evidence base

Published studies and programmes most relevant to this compound:

  • Small pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies

Sustained rather than pulsatile elevation of growth hormone secretion is physiologically different from the natural pattern, and the long-term consequences of that difference are not established.

Individual digests for several of these are maintained separately in this commons and are linked from the evidence category. A digest is a summary with its criticisms attached; it is not a substitute for reading the paper.

Analytical considerations

The usual analytical approach depends on whether the molecule is a peptide; where it is not, peptide conventions do not transfer. A purity figure is an area percentage at a stated wavelength under a stated gradient, and it is not interchangeable with a content determination.

Three things a purity assay on this compound will not tell you: how much peptide is in the container (that requires a content assay), what the counter-ion is (that requires ion chromatography or NMR), and whether anything is present that does not elute under the method used.

See Reversed-phase HPLC for peptides and LC-MS identity confirmation for the method detail.

Status and legality

Research use only.

Material sold as research-use-only is not a licensed medicine, whatever it contains and however good its certificate is. That is a statement about regulatory status rather than about quality, and it is true of high-purity material as much as of poor material.

Limitations of this page

This is a reference page maintained by volunteers, reviewed on the date shown, and it will be out of date at some point after that date. It summarises published work rather than reproducing it, and a summary always loses something. Where the summary and the source disagree, the source is right.

If you find an error, the fastest route to fixing it is a topic in doc review naming the sentence and the source. The maintainers named above are notified.

Revision history

2026-07-12a.reyesUpdated a dated claim and added the date explicitly, per the maintenance convention.
2026-02-25batchlogRestructured into shorter sections so the outline navigation is usable.
2025-11-08KAnderssonAdded the worked example that the review thread asked for.
2025-08-20chromatogramAnnual review: checked every figure against its source. Two rounded values tightened.
2025-06-29logbook_erinRecorded a dissent from one maintainer rather than resolving it silently.
2025-01-30excursion_checkInitial promotion from the source topic. Structure taken from the marked solution.

Every edit to a maintained document records its author and a note explaining the change. An edit without a note may be reverted by any wiki editor under R9, and the revert is logged. Disagreements about content belong on the source topic rather than in the revision history (R10).

Related documents