PepGenexShop our research products

BPC-157

Also identified as Body Protection Compound 157, PL 14736, Pentadecapeptide BPC 157

Synthetic pentadecapeptide

Molecular weight
1419.5
Molecular formula
C62H98N16O22
CAS
137525-51-0
Published studies reviewed
3

FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. NOT FOR HUMAN OR VETERINARY USE. NOT FOR HUMAN CONSUMPTION.

Compounds described on this site are supplied solely for laboratory research. They are not offered for human or veterinary use or for clinical use, and they are not intended to diagnose, mitigate, cure or prevent any disease.

BPC-157 is a synthetic pentadecapeptide, a fifteen-residue chain that the literature describes as a stable fragment of a protein found in gastric juice. Three publications are reviewed: one rat study of blood-supply recovery in an injured segment of colon and two small human pilot studies. Neither human pilot included a comparison group, so neither can attribute what it recorded to the compound.

At a glance

Also identified as
Body Protection Compound 157, PL 14736, Pentadecapeptide BPC 157
Class
Synthetic pentadecapeptide
Target or mechanism
The rat study recorded here attributes its findings to the nitric oxide system, on the basis that the compound counteracted the effects of L-NAME and L-arginine given alongside it.
Evidence types represented
animal, human
Published studies reviewed
3
Last reviewed
2026-09-20

Overview

BPC-157 is a synthetic pentadecapeptide — fifteen amino acids — described in the literature as a stable fragment derived from a protein found in gastric juice.

Most of what has been published about it is animal work, and the study recorded here is representative: rats, an injured segment of colon, and measurements of how quickly blood supply returned to it.

Two human publications exist and both are on this page. They are small and neither had a comparison group. One is a pilot study in twelve women with interstitial cystitis, whose outcome measure was a self-rated questionnaire. The other is a safety pilot in two people. Findings from a study with no control arm cannot be separated from what would have happened anyway, and both records are marked accordingly wherever their figures appear.

Nothing here is a statement about the research material PepGenex supplies.

Mechanism under investigation

The rat study recorded here attributes its findings to the nitric oxide system, on the basis that the compound counteracted the effects of L-NAME and L-arginine given alongside it. No publication on this page identifies a receptor.

Scope of the published work

Areas investigated
  • Blood-supply recovery in injured tissue (rats)
  • Interstitial cystitis symptoms
  • Safety in a human pilot study
Models used
  • Rat models of ischaemic colitis
  • Uncontrolled human pilot studies

The two human publications recorded here enrolled twelve and two participants respectively, neither had a comparison group, and one measured its outcome with a self-rated questionnaire. Neither can establish that what was recorded was caused by the compound. Nothing on this page is a statement about the research material PepGenex supplies.

Limitations

Evidence represented on this page: animal and human. No in vitro research is represented. The page reviews 3 published studies, and each figure is reported for the study that published it; results are not pooled across studies.

Common questions

What is BPC-157?

BPC-157 is a synthetic pentadecapeptide — fifteen amino acids — described in the literature as a stable fragment derived from a protein found in gastric juice.

How does BPC-157 work, according to the published research?

The rat study recorded here attributes its findings to the nitric oxide system, on the basis that the compound counteracted the effects of L-NAME and L-arginine given alongside it. No publication on this page identifies a receptor.

What has published research on BPC-157 found, and what are its limits?

This page records 3 publications, reporting animal work in 1, human work in 2. Each is listed with its identifier under References.

Human studies represented: Lee et al., 2025, PMID 40131143; Lee et al., 2024, PMID 39325560.

Evidence represented on this page: animal and human.

No in vitro research is represented.

The page reviews 3 published studies, and each figure is reported for the study that published it; results are not pooled across studies.

The two human publications recorded here enrolled twelve and two participants respectively, neither had a comparison group, and one measured its outcome with a self-rated questionnaire. Neither can establish that what was recorded was caused by the compound. Nothing on this page is a statement about the research material PepGenex supplies.

Is BPC-157 approved by the U.S. FDA?

This page cites no FDA approval record for BPC-157; PepGenex Science states a U.S. regulatory status only where a sourced record exists.

PepGenex research materials are not FDA approved and are not for human or veterinary use.

What risks have published studies of BPC-157 reported?

1 published human study on this page reports adverse events or safety measurements. Each is listed with its publication in the adverse-events section of this page.

Trial events do not establish a complete safety profile.

What adverse events have been reported in published studies of BPC-157?

Adverse events and safety measurements as reported by the published human studies on this page. Each entry is attributed to its publication.

Lee et al., 2025, PMID 40131143

Design and population
Safety pilot in two people at one private clinic — a 58-year-old man and a 68-year-old woman, each of whom had received BPC-157 before this study began. The peptide was given on day one and again on day two, with blood work and vital signs recorded before and after each dose and again on day three.
Events reported
The peptide produced no measurable change in the tested markers of heart, liver, kidney or thyroid function, or in blood glucose. No adverse events were reported by either participant. The publication states that further study is needed to confirm safety.

Trial events do not establish a complete safety profile.

Published research

Grouped by the kind of study. Select one to narrow what is shown below.

Preclinical (animal)(1)

Preclinical (animal)

Duzel et al., 2017 (title withheld on this site; see the publication record)

Duzel A, Vlainic J, Antunovic M, et al.; Sikiric P, World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2017;23(48):8465-8488

published

Rat study of ischaemic colitis and of reperfusion after it, in which a 25 mm colon segment was deprived of blood supply by ligation. BPC-157, L-NAME, L-arginine or saline was given, and vessel appearance was recorded by camera over the following 15 minutes.

  • In the rats given BPC-157, vessel presentation increased, connections inside and outside the vascular arcade reappeared quickly, mucosal folds were preserved and pale areas were small and markedly reduced.
  • Malondialdehyde and nitric oxide levels in colon tissue, both disturbed by the injury, were reported as normal in the rats given BPC-157. The compound also counteracted the worsening produced by L-NAME and by L-arginine, which is the basis on which the authors implicate the nitric oxide system.
Context

This is rat work, and it is mechanistic: what happened to blood vessels and to two tissue markers in an injured segment of colon. It is also worth knowing that the large majority of the published BPC-157 literature comes from one research group, so the body of work is better read as one sustained programme than as a set of independent groups arriving at the same answer.

View publication →

Human study (phase not stated)(2)

Human study (phase not stated)n = 2

Safety of Intravenous Infusion of BPC157 in Humans: A Pilot Study

Lee E, Burgess K, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 2025;31(5):20-24

published

Safety pilot in two people at one private clinic — a 58-year-old man and a 68-year-old woman, each of whom had received BPC-157 before this study began. The peptide was given on day one and again on day two, with blood work and vital signs recorded before and after each dose and again on day three.

  • The peptide produced no measurable change in the tested markers of heart, liver, kidney or thyroid function, or in blood glucose. No adverse events were reported by either participant. The publication states that further study is needed to confirm safety.
Limitations

Read the two human records for what they are. Twelve women, then two people; one clinic; the same first author and the same journal; no comparison group in either; and in the larger one, an outcome that consists of what each participant said about her own symptoms after a procedure she knew she had received. A result that strong, recorded that way, is the pattern that most often fails to survive a controlled trial — not because the people reporting it were wrong, but because nothing in the design can separate the compound from everything else that changed that day.

Context

The safety pilot enrolled two people, and both had received the compound before the study started. Two participants cannot establish that something is safe; what this publication records is that in these two, on these two days, nothing measurable moved.

View publication →
Human study (phase not stated)n = 12

Lee et al., 2024 (title withheld on this site; see the publication record)

Lee E, Walker C, Ayadi B, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 2024;30(10):12-17

published

Pilot study at one private clinic in twelve women aged 39 to 76, mean age 58.3 years, all with moderate to severe interstitial cystitis and none of whom had responded to pentosan polysulfate. BPC-157 was given during a single cystoscopy. There was no comparison group.

  • Ten of the twelve participants reported complete resolution of symptoms after the single procedure and rated their outcome at 100% on a Global Response Assessment questionnaire; the remaining two rated it at 80%, describing most symptoms as resolved. Nobody withdrew from the study.
  • The publication reports no comparison group, no blinding, and no measurement point for the outcome it records. Its outcome measure is what each participant said about her own symptoms, and there is no untreated group against which to judge what would have happened without the procedure.
Limitations

Read the two human records for what they are. Twelve women, then two people; one clinic; the same first author and the same journal; no comparison group in either; and in the larger one, an outcome that consists of what each participant said about her own symptoms after a procedure she knew she had received. A result that strong, recorded that way, is the pattern that most often fails to survive a controlled trial — not because the people reporting it were wrong, but because nothing in the design can separate the compound from everything else that changed that day.

View publication →

References

Published studies reviewed (3)

  1. Duzel et al., 2017 (title withheld on this site; see the publication record) — Duzel A, Vlainic J, Antunovic M, et al.; Sikiric P, World Journal of Gastroenterology, 2017;23(48):8465-8488
    DOI 10.3748/wjg.v23.i48.8465 · PMID 29358856 · PMC5752708
  2. Lee et al., 2024 (title withheld on this site; see the publication record) — Lee E, Walker C, Ayadi B, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 2024;30(10):12-17
    PMID 39325560
  3. Safety of Intravenous Infusion of BPC157 in Humans: A Pilot Study — Lee E, Burgess K, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 2025;31(5):20-24
    PMID 40131143

Continue learning