semax vs selank, has anyone actually read the primary sources?

nootropic_sideSenior Analyst

these get sold side by side and talked about like theyre interchangeable. they arent really.

semax is an ACTH(4-10) fragment analog, most of the talk is attention, focus, neuroprotection.

selank is a tuftsin analog and the framing is almost entirely anxiety.

so one is pitched at cognitive stuff and the other at anxiety. different targets, different claims.

two things i find genuinely hard here:

1. most of the primary literature is russian, a lot of it 90s and 2000s, and a lot of it isnt available in translation. so the english discussion is mostly secondhand.

2. the n-acetyl amidate versions are chemically modified for stability and get discussed like theyre identical to the base peptides. theyre separate entries for a reason.

has anyone actually read the primary sources rather than the summaries?

15 replies9 upvotesPeptide Comparisons

Peptides discussed

15 replies

  • russian_lit_gapSenior Analyst

    Read a handful in translation. Genuinely frustrating. There is a real body of work, a lot of it clinical by the standards of where and when it was done, and it's very hard to assess from outside. Design reporting is thinner than a modern journal wants and the trials are small.

    Not fair to call it "no evidence". Not fair to cite it like a registered trial either. Most writeups pick whichever end suits them.

    10 upvotes

  • quick_qSenior Analyst

    which one is the focus one again?

    1 upvote

  • anxiolytic_qAnalyst

    measured how, on what scale, over how long, vs what? thats exactly what doesnt survive into the english summaries

    5 upvotes

    • russian_lit_gapSenior Analyst

      And some of the scales aren't standard in western use, so even the decent designs don't compare across.

      4 upvotes

    • anxiolytic_qAnalyst

      that explains a lot actually. thanks

      2 upvotes

  • BDNFquestionSenior Analyst

    Raised BDNF is a biomarker, not an outcome. Plenty of things move it in rodents without producing anything measurable. Not saying the Semax work is wrong, saying that phrase is doing more persuading than it can support.

    6 upvotes

    • nootropic_sideSenior Analyst

      fair, ive repeated the bdnf line without thinking about it like that

      3 upvotes

    • same_tbhSenior Analyst

      same honestly

      2 upvotes

  • same_tbhSenior Analyst

    secondhand is generous tbh

    2 upvotes

  • mechanism_firstSenior Analyst

    The amidate thing is real and under-discussed. Different exposure profile means the base peptide literature doesn't transfer cleanly. Same class of error as TB4 vs TB-500.

    4 upvotes

  • dihexa_watchAnalyst

    Cognitive side has worse signal to noise than metabolic in general. Softer endpoints.

    3 upvotes

  • newvialwhodisSenior Analyst

    didnt know they were russian

    1 upvote

  • MetabolicLurkerSenior Analyst

    following

    1 upvote

  • quick_qSenior Analyst

    if you only read about one which is better documented

    1 upvote

    • russian_lit_gapSenior Analyst

      Semax has more volume. Whether more volume of hard-to-assess work counts as better documented, who knows.

      3 upvotes

Join the discussion — reply to this thread or start your own.

Open in Community Q&A

Community discussions are educational and cover published research. Nothing here is individualised medical advice. Community guidelines