GHK-Cu is a copper-binding tripeptide (glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine bound to a copper-2 ion) found in human plasma. The literature is large but mostly cell, animal and cosmetic-cream work; human trials are small. In 102 public lab certificates for single-compound GHK-Cu that we mirror, median HPLC purity is 99.88% and median measured content is 108.3% of label. Two vials came in under 90% of label, the lowest at 22.9%. Injectable GHK-Cu is not approved anywhere and is not eligible for US 503A compounding.
Research notes
Across 102 public certificates, research GHK-Cu has a median HPLC purity of 99.88%. Content varies more: a median of 108.3% of label and a low of 22.9%. The compound has a large dermatology literature and a thin human-trial record.
How does GHK-Cu work?
GHK (glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine) binds copper-2 ions and is present in human plasma, saliva and urine, at levels that fall with age. Pickart and colleagues' 2015 review describes it stimulating both the synthesis and breakdown of collagen and glycosaminoglycans, modulating metalloproteinases and their inhibitors, and attracting immune and endothelial cells to injury sites, and reports that it can up- or down-regulate at least 4,000 human genes. A 2018 follow-up by Pickart and Margolina extends that gene-expression argument.
Read that literature with two caveats:
- Most of it is preclinical. Wound healing has been shown in rats, mice, pigs and dogs. Human evidence is mostly cosmetic-cream studies.
- Much of it comes from one group. A 2026 systematic review screened 1,247 records, kept 64, and noted that about 35% of the primary literature in its window has Loren Pickart or Anna Margolina as an author. Pickart first isolated the peptide and held commercial interests in the field. The review calls human randomised trials "small" and mostly limited to facial creams.
What the lab record shows
We mirror public certificates from Kovera Labs (retrieved 2 August 2026), Janoshik's public results (30 June 2026) and the lab reports three vendors publish on their own sites (May 2026). Leaving out blends, and counting each identical result once (reissued copies of one test, and identical figures filed under different client names, including the six Janoshik reports below), 102 certificates name GHK-Cu as the only compound: 86 from Kovera, 9 from Janoshik, 7 from vendor pages. They were analysed between 9 April 2025 and 30 May 2026.
| Measure | Value |
|---|---|
| Certificates (deduplicated, single compound) | 102 |
| With a purity figure | 100 |
| Median HPLC purity | 99.88% |
| Lowest purity | 98.63% |
| Below 99% / below 98% | 6 / 0 |
| At or above 99.5% | 78 of 100 |
| With label and measured mass | 96 |
| Median measured content | 108.3% of label |
| Identity not confirmed | 0 |
Purity barely moves for this compound in the public record: every figure sits between 98.63% and 99.99%. Earlier versions of this page gave "95–99%", which understated what the certificates show.
Content moves more. Measured mass against label, on the 96 certificates that print both:
| Measured content vs label | Certificates |
|---|---|
| Below 90% | 2 |
| 90% to under 95% | 1 |
| 95% to under 100% | 3 |
| 100% to 110% | 60 |
| Over 110% to 120% | 27 |
| Over 120% | 3 |
Most vials are overfilled, the same pattern we see across the wider corpus. Where a label is printed it is 50 mg (55 certificates) or 100 mg (43).
The outlier. Kovera certificate KVR-2026-7449A0, analysed 21 May 2026 for the client RedlinePeppers, lot RLP-GHK-CU50mg-001, reports 11.44 mg in a 50 mg vial (22.9% of label) at 99.537% purity. The peptide in the vial was what it should be; there was under a quarter of it. It is the clearest case in this record of a purity figure missing a short vial. The record does not say how the shortfall arose, and it covers one lot.
Selection bias. These are results that vendors and their clients chose to publish. A seller who receives a bad certificate can leave it unpublished. Read the medians as the public record, not as the market.
What do six identical Janoshik reports mean?
Six Janoshik test IDs carry the same GHK-Cu result under six different client and manufacturer names:
| Janoshik test | Sample | Measured | Purity | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 137807 | GHK-Cu 100 mg | 77.27 mg | 99.435% | 14 Apr 2026 |
| 147736 | GHK-Cu 100 mg | 77.27 mg | 99.435% | 14 Apr 2026 |
| 147737 | GHK-Cu 100 mg | 77.27 mg | 99.435% | 14 Apr 2026 |
| 147738 | GHK-Cu 100 mg | 77.27 mg | 99.435% | 14 Apr 2026 |
| 147739 | GHK-Cu 100 mg | 77.27 mg | 99.435% | 14 Apr 2026 |
| 147740 | GHK-Cu 100 mg | 77.27 mg | 99.435% | 14 Apr 2026 |
What it means. Two separate vials do not return the same mass to two decimals and the same purity to three. Our reading is that one sample was assayed once and the report issued six times under different names. We count it once in the tables above. It is also the second-lowest content figure in the record: 77.3% of label.
What it does not mean. It does not show which of the six names made the powder, that any of them is a reseller of another, or that a vial bought from any of them today comes from that lot. It is not evidence of wrongdoing; a report can be shared legitimately along a supply chain. What it does show is that a certificate can travel further than the vial it describes. When a seller shows you this report, you are looking at one 100 mg vial from April. Our piece on shared lab-test URLs and upstream supply covers the related case where two storefronts cite the same test ID.
How should you read a GHK-Cu certificate?
- Check measured mass against the label, not just purity. On this compound purity barely varies and content does.
- Expect a free-GHK peak. An Ascension Peptides certificate from MZ Biolabs (26 January 2026) reports GHK-Cu at 81.34% and free GHK at 18.06% of peak area, summed to 99.40% "overall purity", with a lab note that the copper complex dissociates slightly during HPLC. Ask what a purity figure counts before comparing it with another lab's.
- Match the lot and the date. A certificate covers the sample tested. Resolve it on the lab's own site; the steps are in how to verify a Janoshik COA and our COA verifier.
- Check whether the report is unique. Search the test ID and the result. Identical figures under different names are one test.
- Read contamination panels for what they are. 36 of the 86 Kovera GHK-Cu certificates carry an endotoxin line, all reading "< 0.10 EU/mL". Our endotoxin guide explains why a uniform figure like that is a reporting floor, not a measurement.
Kovera revises some certificates in place under the same code; the pattern is in our Kovera revisions report. Note the date you read one.
Is GHK-Cu in human clinical trials?
Not as a treatment. As of 13 October 2026, ClinicalTrials.gov holds no genuine registered trial of GHK-Cu as a therapy. The closest is a commercial study of a wearable patch that measures blood GHK and GHK-Cu levels (NCT07706361, LifeWave, not yet recruiting). A Phase 2 "topical GHK-Cu gel" wound-healing record (NCT07437586) belongs to a set of eight registrations from one sponsor whose siblings call themselves fictional or mock studies. Do not cite it.
Is GHK-Cu legal?
The answer splits by route. Our peptide legality tracker entry for GHK-Cu, last verified 12 October 2026, has the sources.
| Question | Status |
|---|---|
| FDA | Cosmetic ingredient; no drug approval for any indication |
| 503A compounding | Non-injectable GHK-Cu in interim Category 1 (FDA list of 14 May 2026); injectable GHK-Cu not eligible |
| PCAC review | FDA says before the end of February 2027; no date set |
| DEA | Not scheduled |
| WADA | Not named; status unclear. The 2027 List adds "peptides" to the S0 examples, which in our reading makes injected GHK-Cu harder to treat as permitted |
A research-use-only label is not a safe harbour where human-use intent is evident. All vials referenced are research-grade reagents and are not intended for human consumption.
Related reading
- KLOW stack research read - the blend that pairs GHK-Cu with BPC-157, TB-500 and KPV.
- KPV and BPC-157 - the other components of those blends.
- What 1,828 Kovera COAs show - the corpus behind most of the figures above.
What it's researched for
- skin regeneration
- hair growth
- anti-aging
Where to source it
ALL 18 VENDORS →RANKED BY COMPOSITE SCORE · PRICES ARE SNAPSHOTS FROM THE PRICE INDEX · PER-MG IS A WITHIN-COMPOUND COMPARATOR
Frequently asked about GHK-Cu
What is GHK-Cu?
GHK-Cu is the tripeptide glycyl-L-histidyl-L-lysine bound to a copper-2 ion. GHK occurs in human plasma, saliva and urine and declines with age, according to the 2015 review by Pickart and colleagues. It is sold both as a cosmetic ingredient (copper tripeptide-1) and as a research vial.
What is GHK-Cu used for in research?
Published work centres on collagen and glycosaminoglycan synthesis, wound healing, hair follicles and gene-expression studies. A 2026 systematic review found the evidence mostly preclinical, with human randomised trials small and largely limited to facial creams.
Is GHK-Cu safe?
Topical cosmetic use has the longest track record. Injected GHK-Cu has no drug approval anywhere and no adequately powered human safety data, so there is no basis for calling it safe. Research-grade vials are not for human administration.
What purity does research-grade GHK-Cu test at?
Across 100 public certificates with a purity figure (Kovera, Janoshik and vendor-published lab reports), median HPLC purity is 99.88%, the lowest is 98.63%, and none is below 98%. Purity does not tell you how much peptide is in the vial; measured content ranged from 22.9% to 141% of label.
Why do six Janoshik GHK-Cu reports show identical results?
Janoshik tests 137807 and 147736 to 147740 each carry a different client and manufacturer name but the same result: 77.27 mg in a 100 mg vial at 99.435% purity, dated 14 April 2026. Independent vials do not match to two and three decimals, so in our reading this is one sample reported six times. It tells you nothing about the vials any of those sellers ships now.
Is GHK-Cu legal?
As a cosmetic ingredient, yes. Non-injectable GHK-Cu is in FDA's interim Category 1 for 503A compounding; injectable GHK-Cu is not eligible. It is not DEA-scheduled. WADA does not name it, but its 2027 List adds peptides to the S0 examples, which in our reading makes injected use harder to treat as permitted.