821 replies to this topic

[niner]

(GHK)₂Cu is not a single molecule; it is two molecules.  There is no six amino acid peptide involved here; it's two tripeptides, with enough copper present to bind to half of the tripeptides, but not to all of them.   It's not a compound, it's a mixture of two compounds.  I think people are being confused by the use of what looks like a chemical formula when talking about a mixture.  Normally, a chemical formula refers to a single pure compound.

[VERITAS INCORRUPTUS]

Incorrect.  Cu can bind two GHK peptide molecules, which is what the structural diagram shows on the aforementioned site.  

 

The molecule is correctly identified as Bis(GHK)-Cu.  Not so smart nomenclature might write 2(GHK)Cu.  I believe it is now changed upon the site written as GHK:Cu 2:1.  This still still would be seen by most of a scientific inclination to interpret such to be distinctly designated as a compound structure of 2 GHK peptide molecules bound to 1 copper molecule.  This would be like writing Creatine:Malate 2:1 - two molecules of creatine bound to one molecule of malic acid, as notably creatine and malic acid can exist in many bound ratios.  Otherwise as how it is now written on the site it perhaps could be some really odd way of writing totally segregated MIXTURE of 2 parts GHK (free base) and 1 part Cu (free ion), wherein all are considered in 'free form'.

 

Writing (GHK)2Cu (or however it was prior written on the site with said structural diagram) to connote a mixture of GHK and GHK-Cu is totally inaccurate nomenclature, and who knows within all that what the hizzle the actual item is.   One thing that would seem indicated is that someone who reputes himself to be an expert/professional within peptide synthesis and chemistry should well know better.

 

Either way let it hither forth be known among the good people of this thread GHK-Cu can exist as GHK-Cu (1:1) and Bis(GHK)-Cu 2:1, as to the nature of ionic bonding of the GHK tripeptide molecule to Copper.

 

As well, to assist in any confusion niner may have or others who read his post, wherein two molecules of GHK are bound by one atom of Copper it is really not seen as a hexapeptide (six amino acid peptide), but distinctly as as a Bis-Tripeptide, herein GHK, bound to another agent, herein Cu.  Only wherein all the amino acids are bound by true conjugations to other amino acids would one reference a molecule containing six amino acid molecule as a hexapeptide. Though again within this molecule of Bis(GHK)-Cu there ARE six amino acids in total, in the sense of the structure of the entire molecule itself.  Note of course the bonding to the Copper atom is an IONIC bond (whether 2:1 or 1:1).

 

What TeamTLR is distinctly offering is a MIXTURE of GHK tripeptide (base form/free base) and GHK-Cu Peptide (a 1:1 form of ionic bound GHK-Copper) as that which would seem to clearly be what was most optimal for further research into this area.  

 

Hope that all helps. 

Edited by VERITAS INCORRUPTUS, 07 January 2015 - 02:36 PM.

[pure]

Thank you very much for those words of wisdom.

So literally.. one jar containing GHK in the left hand, and one jar containing GHK-Cu in the right hand, and both

poured into a 3rd jar and mixed together, but not bonded together?

Also, you mentioned free base, but what about the appropriate salt base?

Most peptide pharmaceuticals are Hcl or Ac salts.

[VERITAS INCORRUPTUS]

Indeed in prior discussions with Logic within the want to assist to provide as best, I noted that the acetylated forms are likely most superior for further research.  However, within all the confusion that arises within these affairs we agreed the best proposal would be simply to look to provide what appeared desired.

 

TeamTLR can very well provide a 50/50 MIXTURE of Ac-GHK and Ac-GHK-Cu which are the acetylated forms.  I do believe the overall pharmacodynamics are likely superior within such.  Price and all the rest would be the same, such as what appeared desired at 10 x 100mcg and within the presentation so offered.

 

Did I just open up a whole jar of wax?

Edited by VERITAS INCORRUPTUS, 07 January 2015 - 03:15 PM.

[niner]

Either way let it hither forth be known among the good people of this thread GHK-Cu can exist as GHK-Cu (1:1) and Bis(GHK)-Cu 2:1, as to the nature of ionic bonding of the GHK tripeptide molecule to Copper.

 

As well, to assist in any confusion niner may have or others who read his post, wherein two molecules of GHK are bound by one atom of Copper it is really not seen as a hexapeptide (six amino acid peptide), but distinctly as as a Bis-Tripeptide, herein GHK, bound to another agent, herein Cu.  Only wherein all the amino acids are bound by true conjugations to other amino acids would one reference a molecule containing six amino acid molecule as a hexapeptide. Though again within this molecule of Bis(GHK)-Cu there ARE six amino acids in total, in the sense of the structure of the entire molecule itself.  Note of course the bonding to the Copper atom is an IONIC bond (whether 2:1 or 1:1).

 

 

Veritas, I think you are the one who is confused.  GHK  doesn't form an ionic salt with copper, it forms a coordination complex.  The copper is ligated by the terminal amine and amide N of Gly, and by one of the ring nitrogens of the histidine.  It's a 1:1 complex.  The structure has been determined by a variety of methods, including X-ray crystallography.  The references are at Pickart's site.  Was I not sufficiently clear when I said it was NOT a hexapeptide?

 

BTW, if you acetylate the N-terminus, you'll destroy most or all of the activity of the compound, since that site is involved in metal coordination.

Edited by niner, 07 January 2015 - 04:19 PM.

[Logic]

As an amateur I am still confused!?

I am looking at the pic on Active Peptides' site here:
http://www.activepep...uct/ghk-cu-2-1/

The bond seems pretty strong between the two GHKs and the copper in the middle and to go against what you said Niner, but with some zooming in for a closer inspection of the picture I note that the bond lines are dotted and that the bond is not exactly the same for both GHKs.

I am unsure what dotted lines represent but think its ionic bonds?
Am I correct in assuming that a strong (but not covalent?)'coordination complex' bond forms between one of the GHKs and the Cu and a much weaker bond between then attaches the second GHK?

If so is this weaker bond something that would form spontaneously upon mixing GHK-Cu and GHK?
If so; am I correct in thinking that this weak ionic bond would not be strong enough to consider (GHK)₂Cu to be any different to a 50/50 mix of GHK/GHK-Cu and that the studies would still apply?

Edited by Logic, 07 January 2015 - 09:38 PM.

[niner]

Hmm.  Activepeptide.com drew it that way, but is there any evidence that that's the actual structure?  I can't find anything in the literature that says that compound exists.  Activepeptide were the guys using the screwy nomenclature for what they said was a mixture of GHK-Cu and GHK in a 1:1 ratio, so that structure is probably just more screwiness.  GHK-Cu will crystallize as a dimer in the solid state, but that has two Copper atoms as well as two GHKs.   GHK-Cu is a 1:1 complex in the solution state.
 

Chemistry. 2011 Aug 29;17(36):10151-60. doi: 10.1002/chem.201100751. Epub 2011 Jul 20.
X-ray and solution structures of Cu(II) GHK and Cu(II) DAHK complexes: influence on their redox properties.
Hureau C1, Eury H, Guillot R, Bijani C, Sayen S, Solari PL, Guillon E, Faller P, Dorlet P.

The Gly-His-Lys (GHK) peptide and the Asp-Ala-His-Lys (DAHK) sequences are naturally occurring high-affinity copper(II) chelators found in the blood plasma and are hence of biological interest. A structural study of the copper complexes of these peptides was conducted in the solid state and in solution by determining their X-ray structures, and by using a large range of spectroscopies, including EPR and HYSCORE (hyperfine sub-level correlation), X-ray absorption and (1)H and (13)C NMR spectroscopy. The results indicate that the structures of [Cu(II)(DAHK)] in the solid state and in solution are similar and confirm the equatorial coordination sphere of NH(2), two amidyl N and one imidazole N. Additionally, a water molecule is bound apically to Cu(II) as revealed by the X-ray structure. As reported previously in the literature, [Cu(II)(GHK)], which exhibits a dimeric structure in the solid state, forms a monomeric complex in solution with three nitrogen ligands: NH(2), amidyl and imidazole. The fourth equatorial site is occupied by a labile oxygen atom from a carboxylate ligand in the solid state. We probe that fourth position and study ternary complexes of [Cu(II)(GHK)] with glycine or histidine. The Cu(II) exchange reaction between different DAHK peptides is very slow, in contrast to [Cu(II)(GHK)], in which the fast exchange was attributed to the presence of a [Cu(II)(GHK)(2)] complex. The redox properties of [Cu(II)(GHK)] and [Cu(II)(DAHK)] were investigated by cyclic voltammetry and by measuring the ascorbate oxidation in the presence of molecular oxygen. The measurements indicate that both Cu(II) complexes are inert under moderate redox potentials. In contrast to [Cu(II)(DAHK)], [Cu(II)(GHK)] could be reduced to Cu(I) around -0.62 V (versus AgCl/Ag) with subsequent release of the Cu ion. These complete analyses of structure and redox activity of those complexes gave new insights with biological impact and can serve as models for other more complicated Cu(II)-peptide interactions.

PMID: 21780203

[Flex]

As an amateur I am still confused!?

I am looking at the pic on Active Peptides' site here:
http://www.activepep...uct/ghk-cu-2-1/

The bond seems pretty strong between the two GHKs and the copper in the middle and to go against what you said Niner, but with some zooming in for a closer inspection of the picture I note that the bond lines are dotted and that the bond is not exactly the same for both GHKs.

I am unsure what dotted lines represent but think its ionic bonds?
Am I correct in assuming that a strong (but not covalent?)'coordination complex' bond forms between one of the GHKs and the Cu and a much weaker bond between then attaches the second GHK?

If so is this weaker bond something that would form spontaneously upon mixing GHK-Cu and GHK?
If so; am I correct in thinking that this weak ionic bond would not be strong enough to consider (GHK)₂Cu to be any different to a 50/50 mix of GHK/GHK-Cu and that the studies would still apply?

 

Could be something like a Hydrogen bond or dipole bond respectively

http://en.wikipedia....le_interactions

 

Look at the copper.

It has 5 N attached to it, but copper(VI) is not known according to wiki

http://en.wikipedia...._copper.28IV.29

 

and (afaik, so I dont guarantee it) its rather unlikely that copper appears higher than Cu(II).

If so, then it shouldnt have equal dotted bonds to the Nitrogenes.

 

 

[niner]

The bonds in these copper complexes are not ionic.  They are variously called coordinate covalent, dative, or dipolar bonds.  They are covalent bonds where both electrons come from one of the atoms.  In the case of transition metal complexes, the electrons come from the "ligands", i.e. the attached atoms.  In GHK-Cu, these ligands are the three nitrogens from the peptide and two oxygens from water or other oxygen ligands.  The reason that these complexes don't appear to follow the usual valence rules is because they use the d orbitals of the metal.  Coordination complexes like these are described by various theories- Pauling's Valence Bond Theory, Crystal Field Theory, or Ligand Field Theory.  If you're a chemistry major, this stuff is covered in a class called Inorganic Chemstry.

 

I don't think that the hexacoordinate structure shown on the activepeptides site is correct.

[Logic]

Thx for your input Niner (and Flex)

I wish Lifescience would post a reply but as he has not and his page is 'screwy' I/we cant be sure that what they are selling is in fact a 50/50 mix of GHK/GHK-Cu.

Their price is much lower than TLR's and I hope some people team up to buy the 5 gram minimum so that we can compare product and effects here.

In the mean time; I am going to continue with the 'group buy' from TLR for those wanting around a gram of GHK/GHK-Cu to experiment with.

Below is a list of the people that have confirmed that they are in for the group buy from TLR @ $89.90 per gram + shipping:
(the # is the # of grams they want)

Werper 1
pleb 1
Hebbeh 1
Phoenicis ?
SearchingForAnswers 2
Ark 1
johnross47 1
oppenheimer82 1
StevesPetRat 1
ceridwen 1
smccomas01 2
88LS 1

That's 12+ grams so far.


Below is a list of people that have shown interest, but have not confirmed that they are in the group buy from TLR @ $89.90 per gram + shipping:

Volcanic ?
zorba990 ?
Ehvam ?
ta5 ?
gt35r ?
Ehvam ?
PWAIN ?
Infinite1 ?
nbourbaki ?
Metagene ?
sthira ?
micro2000 ?
neuralis ?
pampoenkop ?
nbourbaki ?
smccomas01 1
xEva ?
neuralis 0.5
IpolitBender 2?
medicineman 1?
pure ?
mike_nyc 1
happy lemon ?
IpolitBender 3
Metagene ??
smithx ??
Pure ??
Matthew Butler ?
Volcanic 1-3
Psy ?
mandaryn ?
sensei ?
katrina ?

Please confirm that you are in for the group buy, by posting here.

(Mods:
I tried PMing the above list, but the list of names clears after adding around 5 names?
Is this an anti-spam measure and is there a way around it plz?)

[smccomas01]

I am in

[jafuga]

jafuga -  1 gram -  confirmed

[smithx]

Are we planning to do any kind of analysis on what TLR provides?

 

I think that would be very advisable.

[tintinet]

I'd like to be in the group buy for at least 1 gram, thanks!

[jafuga]

Are we planning to do any kind of analysis on what TLR provides?

 

I think that would be very advisable.

 

 

I think its necessary

Edited by jafuga, 11 January 2015 - 10:03 AM.

[Logic]

I quite agree that independent testing is a damn good idea!

I spoke to TLR about a COA.  Their reply was that a COA is easily faked and that if a sample from them is independently tested, there is nothing to say that what everyone else gets is the same thing.
They say that their reputation should be enough and a site search shows that everyone here is happy with the products they have received?
Do let us know if you are not.

If anyone has any ideas on how to test the GHK/GHK-Cu we get from TLR please let us know.
 
Confirmed count: 14+ grams

[pro-v]

Count me in for 1

[smithx]

I will have it tested in exchange for a gram + 100mg extra for testing. 

 

 

[pure]

What 'results' is everyone hoping to observe?

What are everyone's expectations in terms of the perceptible differences they might hope to see as a result of GHK?

[pleb]

Mine would be a reduction of wrinkles. There are a number of cosmetic companies now using this as an addition to face creams. added to topical creams at 3 to 4 percent . Independent Trails indicated a reduction in wrinkles of 42 to 46 percent in a month 62 to 68 percent over 3 months using laser tomography.
Plus if the various claims are accurate collagen DNA repair and rejuvenation.
collagen makes up 30 percent of the bodies soft tissue.

Taken as a peptide through the mucus membrane it should be much more effective and effect the entire bodies skin and collagen.
I live in hope.

[Logic]

Mine would be a reduction of wrinkles. There are a number of cosmetic companies now using this as an addition to face creams. added to topical creams at 3 to 4 percent . Independent Trails indicated a reduction in wrinkles of 42 to 46 percent in a month 62 to 68 percent over 3 months using laser tomography.
Plus if the various claims are accurate collagen DNA repair and rejuvenation.
collagen makes up 30 percent of the bodies soft tissue.

Taken as a peptide through the mucus membrane it should be much more effective and effect the entire bodies skin and collagen.
I live in hope.

Yep.  That and lung rejuvenation for me.
The re-setting of DNA to a younger state would be a bonus.
I want to take it with FOS and RS which increase Butyrate production, and a Butyrate sup of some sort.
Hopefully this will increase GDF11 at the same time and be synergistic.
MCTs also look to increase Butyrate.

http://www.longecity...ndpost&p=662013

(Confirmed count: 16+ grams (Pleb confirmed 2 grams via PM)

@ smithx:
I will pass your offer on to TLR...

[Logic]

Dangerous & Irresponsible!?  That does not help if I don't know why you think so?

None of the things I want to take are dangerous with the exception of an overdose of Butyrate of some sort. (undecided)
  Plz explain? I'm here to learn.

[smccomas01]

I am still on for the 2 grams 

[niner]

Dangerous & Irresponsible!?  That does not help if I don't know why you think so?

None of the things I want to take are dangerous with the exception of an overdose of Butyrate of some sort. (undecided)
  Plz explain? I'm here to learn.

 

I've been seeing more and more bizarre ratings like this.  To be honest, I'm really starting to dislike the new rating system.

[smccomas01]

I concur on the ratings system 

[Flex]

Edit

Edited by Flex, 18 January 2015 - 05:08 PM.

[Flex]

Dangerous & Irresponsible!?  That does not help if I don't know why you think so?

None of the things I want to take are dangerous with the exception of an overdose of Butyrate of some sort. (undecided)
  Plz explain? I'm here to learn.

 

 

Dont look at this. Its in most cases rated by a troll who´s oblivously fooling arround.

 

@ Niner

Dunno, You would otherwise get a bland "dislike"

 

Edited by Flex, 18 January 2015 - 05:08 PM.

[zorba990]

Just fyi no issues with sodium butyrate at up to 6000mg day for me. In for a gram but how does this work? Do you pm us a purchase code or ? I may be adding allantoin soon if I can find a good food grade source.

Edited by zorba990, 18 January 2015 - 06:53 PM.

[Logic]

I suppose Dangerous and Irresponsible gives a little more info than a Dislike Niner, so the rating system is an improvement on the old one.
If one could see who voted what; people would be less likely to abuse the system and it would be more accurate as a rating system..?

I think the rating is because the reader didn't look further than the Trichostatin A (which IS dangerous!) in the beginning of the linked post.
Further down is says:
 

"...Supplements like sodium butyrate and prebiotics like RS (Resistant starch)and FOS (fructooligosaccharides) also seem interesting. For sodium butyrate, you can see it go up against drugs like trichostatin A and valproic acid here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm....9941/figure/F4/
http://www.ncbi.nlm....9941/figure/F3/
..."

In post #26 of the same thread the below also exited me as the 'official resident Virgin Coconut Oil (VCO) pimp!'
 

"...Beta-hydroxybutyrate is actually a ketone and can be raised by calorie restriction, fasting, and by medium chain triglycerides. This ketone was traditionally thought of as an alternative source of energy for the brain when glucose levels are low, but has recently been found to act as a signalling molecule and an HDAC inhibitor.

A mere 30g/d of MCTs produces a mild ketosis, similar to calorie restriction..."

 
Here's the link again:
http://www.longecity...r/#entry662013 
 
But lets get back on topic now.

[sthira]

Are you all contemplating injecting this purchase of GHK/GHK-Cu? Or swallowing it? Putting into facial cream?