Skip to content

Shop
Scholar
Lab Results
Learn
Vote
Forum
About

Search Kodiac

Sign in Sign up Account

Category: Uncategorized

Zolpidem

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 58 / 100

Zolpidem, sold as Ambien, is the most prescribed prescription sleep aid in the United States. It belongs to the Z-drug class, which were designed to act selectively at the alpha-1 subtype of GABA-A receptors that drives sedation, theoretically avoiding the anxiolytic and muscle-relaxant effects (and the dependence) of benzodiazepines. In practice the selectivity is partial and dependence does develop with chronic use. Zolpidem is also notorious for next-day amnesia and unusual nocturnal behaviors (sleep-driving, sleep-eating) that prompted FDA dose reductions, particularly for women, who clear the drug more slowly. Not stocked by Kodiac. This monograph is provided for research and educational reference.

Intrigue 0–100 blends mechanism novelty, evidence strength, and translational potential. Kodiac editorial, not peer-reviewed.

Our opinion on this compoundEstablished workhorse

43/100

Canonical Z-drug hypnotic; alpha-1 selectivity is a useful pharmacological probe but the compound is pharmacologically mature

Look, zolpidem is about as well-understood as a CNS compound gets. FDA approval in 1992 as Ambien, massive post-marketing surveillance, black-box warnings from complex sleep behaviors, CYP3A4 metabolism characterized to the last detail. The alpha-1 selectivity story was genuinely interesting when it emerged from Synthelabo’s program because it separated the sedative/hypnotic effect from the anxiolytic, muscle-relaxant, and anticonvulsant effects that made benzodiazepines problematic. That’s a real pharmacological achievement. The question is whether it’s an interesting research achievement in 2025, and the honest answer is mostly no.

The mechanism is clean and the subtype selectivity (Ki approximately 20 nM at alpha-1, substantially lower affinity at alpha-2, alpha-3, and alpha-5) gives zolpidem genuine value as a pharmacological tool for dissecting GABA-A subunit contributions to behavior. We think that’s the most defensible reason to keep this in a research library. If you’re running a program trying to understand alpha-1 vs. alpha-5 contributions to amnestic effects, or mapping the behavioral correlates of subunit-selective PAMs, zolpidem is a reasonable reference. That’s the bench value argument, and it’s modest but real.

What we don’t like: the field has moved. Dual orexin receptor antagonists like suvorexant and lemborexant represent a fundamentally different mechanistic approach to sleep pharmacology, and they’ve largely displaced Z-drugs in clinical interest. The questions researchers are now asking about sleep architecture, glymphatic clearance, and circadian biology don’t center on GABA-A modulation the way they did in the 1990s and early 2000s. Zolpidem answers questions that are mostly already answered.

The evidence base is enormous but it reads as a closed book rather than an open one. Multiple decade-long cohort studies, pharmacokinetic profiling across populations, drug interaction data, the FDA black-box revision in 2013. All of this tells a complete story. There’s no contested mechanism to probe, no unexpected signal to chase, no second-indication hypothesis with real momentum. The complex sleep behavior literature is genuinely interesting from a neuroscience standpoint, but it’s more cautionary than exploratory at this point.

Differentiation is the real ceiling here. As a hypnotic, its once-distinctive alpha-1 story is now table stakes for the class, and its clinical profile carries baggage the newer orexin antagonists don’t. As a research tool, there are cleaner subunit-selective compounds that serve the same probe function with less pharmacological noise. Zolpidem sits in the useful-but-not-exciting tier: worth having as a reference, not worth building a program around.

Novelty

22

Mechanism promise

35

In-category differentiation

32

Evidence quality

72

Translational signal

65

Research bench value

50

Rationale Zolpidem is a 1992 FDA-approved Schedule IV compound with fully characterized mechanism and enormous clinical literature, but novelty and differentiation are low given newer orexin antagonist hypnotics have supplanted it clinically; bench value as an alpha-1 GABA-A subtype-selective probe saves it from scoring lower.

Editorial commentary from Kodiac biolabs. Not a recommendation, not clinical advice. Research use only.

Imidazopyridine selective alpha-1 GABA-A agonist (Z-drug)

An imidazopyridine Z-drug hypnotic; a selective alpha-1-containing GABA-A receptor positive modulator with reduced anxiolytic and muscle-relaxant effects.

Abstract

Zolpidem (N,N,6-trimethyl-2-(4-methylphenyl)imidazo[1,2-a]pyridine-3-acetamide; CAS 82626-48-0; molecular formula C19H21N3O; molecular weight 307.39) is an imidazopyridine Z-drug hypnotic developed at Synthelabo and approved by the FDA in 1992 (Ambien). The compound is a positive allosteric modulator of GABA-A receptors at the benzodiazepine site, but with selectivity for alpha-1-containing receptor subtypes (Ki approximately 20 nM) over alpha-2, alpha-3, and alpha-5 (lower affinity). The alpha-1 selectivity produces sedation/hypnosis without the anxiolytic, muscle-relaxant, and anticonvulsant effects of benzodiazepines (which engage all four alpha subtypes). Plasma half-life is approximately 2.5 hours; metabolism is via CYP3A4. Approved for short-term treatment of insomnia. The compound has well-documented complex sleep behaviors (sleepwalking, sleep-driving, sleep-eating) and amnestic effects, with notable case reports of bizarre nighttime behavior leading to FDA black-box warnings. Used as the canonical Z-drug in sleep pharmacology.

Read the full monograph

The full reference document covers compound identification, discovery and developmental history, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, sourcing and quality verification, and a curated reference list. Embedded inline below; download for offline reading.

KDC-MN-347Open in new tab →

Download PDF →

FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. Not for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. Not for human consumption. All information is provided for research and educational purposes only.

May 9, 2026
Methamphetamine (Research)

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 60 / 100

Methamphetamine is the N-methylated cousin of amphetamine. The extra methyl group makes it more lipophilic and substantially better at crossing into the brain, so d-methamphetamine releases central dopamine roughly five times more potently than d-amphetamine on a per-milligram basis. It actually has FDA approval as Desoxyn (1944) for ADHD and obesity, though prescriptions are vanishingly rare; the public knows it primarily as the illicit Schedule II drug. Same mechanism as amphetamine: reverses the monoamine transporters to force release rather than blocking reuptake. The l-enantiomer is the active component of Vicks Vapor Inhaler, which is a strange historical footnote. Used in research as a high-potency reference monoamine releaser. Not stocked by Kodiac. This monograph is provided for research and educational reference.

Intrigue 0–100 blends mechanism novelty, evidence strength, and translational potential. Kodiac editorial, not peer-reviewed.

Our opinion on this compoundFederally scheduled

38/100

Textbook monoamine releaser with real reference value but settled science and Schedule II friction throughout

Look, methamphetamine occupies a genuinely strange position in a research library. It’s Schedule II, massively studied, FDA-approved since 1944, and its pharmacology is about as well-characterized as any small molecule in existence. That combination of thorough understanding and intense regulatory burden makes it a difficult call for most programs.

The mechanism isn’t interesting from a discovery standpoint. Reverse transport at DAT, NET, and SERT with preferential dopamine release is chapter one of stimulant pharmacology. The N-methyl group relative to amphetamine confers greater CNS penetration and a roughly 5-fold potency advantage at central dopamine release, but the N-methylation story was settled decades ago. There’s no unexplored receptor interaction here, no second target that opens up new biology, no emerging indication that changes the calculus. We’ve read every chapter of this book.

Where methamphetamine retains genuine bench value is as a reference standard. If your program involves characterizing novel DAT substrates or inhibitors, running abuse-liability profiling on candidate stimulants, or building monoaminergic neurotoxicity models, meth is the positive control you benchmark against. The striatal dopaminergic neurotoxicity it produces in rodents is a real and reproducible research model, used extensively by the Ricaurte lab and others to probe the limits of monoaminergic resilience and recovery. That role doesn’t go away just because the compound is old.

But here’s the thing: d-amphetamine sulfate does most of the same jobs. For a research program that needs a monoamine releaser reference, amphetamine serves nearly all the same functions with a slightly cleaner regulatory profile (still Schedule II, but more familiar to institutional DEA coordinators). Meths advantages, specifically the enhanced CNS penetration and longer 9-12 hour half-life, matter in specific experimental designs but don’t build a compelling case for general library inclusion.

The evidence quality is excellent in the sense that everything about this compound is known. That’s actually the scoring problem. You can’t rate high on novelty, mechanism promise, or differentiation when the science is essentially finished. The translational signal is clear and thoroughly replicated, but there’s nothing new being translated. Where researchers are doing interesting work adjacent to this compound, they’re typically using it as a tool, not studying it as a discovery target.

What we’d say to bench scientists: procure it if your specific research program requires a high-potency monoamine release reference or an addiction neurobiology stimulus with decades of precedent literature. Don’t add it speculatively. The DEA Schedule II overhead, storage requirements, and institutional scrutiny are real costs, and they aren’t worth paying unless the experimental question specifically demands this compound rather than a functional analog with fewer compliance hurdles.

Novelty

10

Mechanism promise

18

In-category differentiation

32

Evidence quality

78

Translational signal

60

Research bench value

50

Rationale Methamphetamine scores low on novelty and mechanism because its pharmacology is essentially finished knowledge, but retains meaningful bench utility as a DAT/NET reference standard and addiction neuroscience model compound. The Schedule II cap of 65 does not bind because the weighted score lands at 38 on its own merits.

Editorial commentary from Kodiac biolabs. Not a recommendation, not clinical advice. Research use only.

N-methylated phenethylamine stimulant

The N-methylated analog of amphetamine; FDA-approved (Desoxyn) for ADHD and obesity but principally encountered as an illicit drug; a research-grade pharmacology probe.

Abstract

Methamphetamine (N-methyl-1-phenylpropan-2-amine; CAS 537-46-2; molecular formula C10H15N; molecular weight 149.23) is the N-methylated analog of amphetamine, approved by the FDA in 1944 (Desoxyn) for narcolepsy, ADHD, and obesity. Mechanism is the same as amphetamine (monoamine release via reverse transport) with greater CNS penetration owing to the increased lipophilicity from N-methylation. The d-enantiomer (d-methamphetamine) is approximately 5-fold more potent than d-amphetamine at central dopamine release; the l-enantiomer (l-methamphetamine) is the active component of Vicks Vapor Inhaler. Plasma half-life is approximately 9 to 12 hours. Schedule II prescription drug; principally encountered as illicit Schedule II. Used as a research-grade reference compound for monoamine release pharmacology and as a clinical (rare) ADHD medication.

Read the full monograph

The full reference document covers compound identification, discovery and developmental history, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, sourcing and quality verification, and a curated reference list. Embedded inline below; download for offline reading.

KDC-MN-381Open in new tab →

Download PDF →

FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. Not for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. Not for human consumption. All information is provided for research and educational purposes only.

May 9, 2026
L-Arginine

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 40 / 100

L-arginine is a conditionally essential amino acid that serves as the direct substrate for nitric oxide synthase (the enzyme that builds NO) and as a urea cycle intermediate for ammonia clearance. Despite being the literal substrate, oral arginine is a surprisingly poor way to raise nitric oxide because intestinal and liver arginase chew through most of it before it reaches systemic circulation. Citrulline, which bypasses arginase by converting to arginine in the kidney, is paradoxically more effective at raising plasma arginine. Cardiovascular research has tested arginine for endothelial dysfunction, peripheral artery disease, and erectile dysfunction with mixed and underwhelming results. Reference NOS substrate amino acid in research, more useful as a comparator than a therapy. Not stocked by Kodiac. This monograph is provided for research and educational reference.

Intrigue 0–100 blends mechanism novelty, evidence strength, and translational potential. Kodiac editorial, not peer-reviewed.

Our opinion on this compoundBasic amino acid

27/100

The canonical NOS substrate amino acid, outperformed by citrulline and consistently underwhelming in clinical trials

Look, L-arginine is one of those compounds that looks interesting on paper and disappoints on delivery. It’s been a research subject since the 1980s, it’s the canonical NOS substrate in every biochemistry textbook, and it’s generated hundreds of clinical trials. None of that makes it a compelling research target in 2026.

The mechanism is real: L-arginine is the direct substrate for all three nitric oxide synthase isoforms, producing NO and citrulline. The urea cycle role is equally well-characterized. The problem is what actually happens when you administer it orally. Intestinal and hepatic arginase get to it first, converting arginine to ornithine before it reaches systemic circulation. So the compound that is literally defined by being the NOS substrate is, ironically, poor at delivering to NOS via the oral route. L-citrulline bypasses arginase through renal conversion to arginine and is paradoxically more effective at raising plasma arginine levels. Thats a hard pharmacokinetic ceiling to work around, and it cuts to the core of why this compound doesnt hold up as a serious research priority.

The clinical literature reflects this. Endothelial dysfunction, peripheral artery disease, erectile dysfunction, heart failure: L-arginine has been investigated across all of them, and the results are consistently mixed-to-modest. The 2006 WISE trial extension published in JAMA had to be stopped early after supplementation showed no benefit in coronary heart disease patients and produced a signal toward increased post-MI mortality in older subjects. Meta-analyses that followed showed results highly dependent on baseline NO status and population. This isn’t a compound where the evidence is immature and promising; it’s a compound where the evidence is mature and unimpressive. That’s a meaningful distinction when you’re deciding where to put bench time.

As a research tool, L-arginine does retain some narrow utility. It’s the reference substrate for NOS biology, and investigators studying arginase competition, urea cycle disorders, or iNOS induction models use it as a standard. But it’s not indispensable the way rapamycin is for mTOR work. Any lab seriously interested in NO biology will reach for more selective tools, or just use citrulline loading to model systemic arginine availability.

We dont see a strong case for prioritizing L-arginine as a research target. The mechanism is saturated, the evidence base is mature and mixed, and the compound is actively outperformed by its metabolic precursor in its own primary application. It earns a reference role in urea cycle and canonical NOS substrate work, but thats a narrow lane. Investigators with finite resources have better options in almost every direction this compound points.

Novelty

10

Mechanism promise

20

In-category differentiation

15

Evidence quality

60

Translational signal

35

Research bench value

40

Rationale L-arginine scores low on novelty and differentiation because it’s a decades-old compound where citrulline strictly dominates its primary application via arginase bypass; evidence quality is decent for a basic amino acid but the translational signal is mixed-to-negative across cardiovascular endpoints, and bench value is narrow reference use only in NOS and urea cycle work. Calculated overall of 27 falls below the basic-aa cap of 32, so cap does not bind.

Editorial commentary from Kodiac biolabs. Not a recommendation, not clinical advice. Research use only.

Conditionally essential amino acid / nitric oxide precursor

L-arginine; the direct substrate for nitric oxide synthase and a urea cycle intermediate; used as a pre-workout supplement and in cardiovascular research.

Abstract

L-arginine ((S)-2-amino-5-guanidinopentanoic acid; CAS 74-79-3; molecular formula C6H14N4O2; molecular weight 174.20) is a conditionally essential alpha-amino acid that serves as the direct substrate for nitric oxide synthase (NOS), producing NO and citrulline; arginine is also the rate-limiting urea cycle intermediate for ammonia clearance. Despite the direct NOS substrate role, oral arginine supplementation has limited efficacy at increasing systemic NO production because intestinal and hepatic arginase metabolizes arginine to ornithine before it reaches systemic circulation; citrulline, which is converted to arginine in the kidney bypassing arginase, is paradoxically more effective at raising plasma arginine. Clinical research has investigated arginine for cardiovascular conditions (endothelial dysfunction, peripheral artery disease, erectile dysfunction) with mixed results. Plasma half-life is approximately 1 to 2 hours. Used as the canonical NOS substrate amino acid in research.

Read the full monograph

The full reference document covers compound identification, discovery and developmental history, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, sourcing and quality verification, and a curated reference list. Embedded inline below; download for offline reading.

KDC-MN-397Open in new tab →

Download PDF →

FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. Not for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. Not for human consumption. All information is provided for research and educational purposes only.

May 9, 2026
Dimiracetam

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 28 / 100

Dimiracetam is a bicyclic dione racetam analog. Limited published research; used in academic settings to study racetam structure-activity relationships. Not stocked by Kodiac. This monograph is provided for research and educational reference.

Intrigue 0–100 blends mechanism novelty, evidence strength, and translational potential. Kodiac editorial, not peer-reviewed.

Our opinion on this compoundEstablished workhorse

41/100

Structurally distinct NMDA-leaning racetam with modest Phase 2 CIPN signal and stalled development

Look, dimiracetam occupies a peculiar middle zone in the racetam family tree. It’s not the piracetam everyone already knows, and it’s not some purely preclinical compound riding a single lab’s claims. Sigma-Tau ran actual Phase 2 trials in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy, which puts it ahead of most of its structural cousins on the evidence ladder. But “Phase 2 with modest results” and a program that never cleared Phase 3 for commercial and design reasons isnt exactly a ringing endorsement, either.

The structural angle is worth taking seriously. The 1,4-diazabicyclo[3.3.0]octane-2,5-dione scaffold is a fused bicyclic system with two carbonyls per ring, which is a real departure from the flat pyrrolidone cores of piracetam and its descendants. More importantly, the mechanism appears to diverge meaningfully: where standard racetams act primarily through AMPA receptor potentiation, dimiracetam shows glutamatergic effects with an NMDA-related character. Thats a genuine mechanistic distinction within the class, and its probably the reason the compound showed any signal at all in a neuropathic pain indication that AMPA potentiators have no obvious reason to address.

Here’s the thing though: NMDA modulation for neuropathic pain isnt novel pharmacology at the population level. Ketamine, memantine, and a well-trodden literature on NMDA channel blockers predate dimiracetam by decades. The compound may be engaging those pathways through a structurally unusual route, but it hasnt demonstrated that its particular binding profile offers anything decisively superior to existing agents in that space. Phase 2 data showed reduction in pain measures, but the effect sizes were described as modest and the program stalled. Thats a compound that failed to prove itself, not one that was proven wrong, but the distinction matters less at the bench than it sounds.

For investigators, there’s residual probe value specifically in comparing NMDA-adjacent mechanisms across structurally divergent scaffolds, or in studying CIPN pathophysiology at a mechanistic level where you want a compound with actual Phase 2 safety data. That’s a real but narrow use case. Limited research-grade sourcing is a practical constraint that compounds the thin replication record; you cant lean heavily on prior literature when designing studies because there simply isnt much of it outside the Sigma-Tau-affiliated work.

We think dimiracetam is a legitimate but low-priority research object. Investigators already running SAR programs on bicyclic heterocycles or mechanistic CIPN work have reason to look at it. Everyone else should probably let the Phase 3 story play out before committing bench time.

Novelty

42

Mechanism promise

45

In-category differentiation

40

Evidence quality

40

Translational signal

38

Research bench value

38

Rationale Dimiracetam earns mild interest for its genuinely unusual bicyclic scaffold and NMDA-adjacent mechanism within a class almost exclusively defined by AMPA potentiation, plus real Phase 2 clinical data in CIPN; however, modest effect sizes, a program that never cleared Phase 3, limited research-grade availability, and near-zero replication outside Sigma-Tau keep all six axes clustered in the 38-45 band, producing a low-40s overall with no applicable cap.

Editorial commentary from Kodiac biolabs. Not a recommendation, not clinical advice. Research use only.

Bicyclic dione racetam analog

A bicyclic 2,5-pyrrolidinedione developed by Sigma-Tau for chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy.

Abstract

Dimiracetam (1,4-diazabicyclo[3.3.0]octane-2,5-dione; CAS 126716-03-2; molecular formula C7H10N2O2; molecular weight 154.17) is a bicyclic 2,5-pyrrolidinedione developed by Sigma-Tau (now Defiante Farmaceutica) in Italy with development focused on chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. The compound is structurally distinct from open-chain racetams in featuring a fused bicyclic scaffold with two carbonyls per ring. Mechanism is incompletely characterized but appears to involve modulation of glutamatergic transmission with NMDA-related effects, distinct from the AMPA potentiation typical of racetams. Phase 2 trials in chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy showed modest reduction in neuropathic pain measures; the program advanced toward Phase 3 but encountered commercial and design challenges. The compound is not approved by any regulatory authority. Limited research-grade availability. Pharmacokinetics: short half-life (1 to 2 hours) and high oral bioavailability. Clinical doses in Phase 2 ranged from 200 to 1600 mg per day in divided administrations.

Read the full monograph

The full reference document covers compound identification, discovery and developmental history, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, sourcing and quality verification, and a curated reference list. Embedded inline below; download for offline reading.

KDC-MN-039Open in new tab →

Download PDF →

FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. Not for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. Not for human consumption. All information is provided for research and educational purposes only.

May 9, 2026
CX-546

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 42 / 100

CX-546 is a benzoxazine ampakine developed at Cortex as a successor to CX-516 with longer duration. Used in academic research as a higher-potency AMPA potentiator. Not stocked by Kodiac. This monograph is provided for research and educational reference.

Intrigue 0–100 blends mechanism novelty, evidence strength, and translational potential. Kodiac editorial, not peer-reviewed.

Our opinion on this compoundNiche research probe

35/100

Second-gen ampakine with real AMPA kinetic advantages but no clinical translation and limited differentiation in a class that moved on

Look, CX-546 is a genuinely interesting pharmacological object from a chapter of neuropharmacology that deserved better. Cortex Pharmaceuticals spent real money on the ampakine program, and CX-546 was a legitimate iterative advance over CX-516: tighter binding kinetics, deeper AMPA potentiation per receptor event, longer-lasting effect. If you are running AMPA receptor biology in vitro or using rodent models to probe synaptic plasticity mechanisms, CX-546 is a functional tool, and thats worth acknowledging upfront.

Here’s the thing though: the compound belongs to a class defined by two recurring problems. First, the dose window between useful potentiation and convulsant territory is uncomfortably narrow across most ampakines, and CX-546 is no exception even if it showed some pharmacokinetic advantage over its predecessor. Second, and more decisively, the whole Cortex program hit a wall. CX-546 never advanced through pivotal human trials in any indication. The respiratory depression angle, which was the most genuinely promising preclinical story, opioid-reversal in rats being an intellectually compelling hypothesis, never became a human signal worth citing in the context of this compound specifically.

On mechanism, we’d give AMPA positive allosteric modulation more credit here if CX-546 specifically had generated better translational data. The mechanism sits in an important space: LTP, synaptic plasticity, cognitive processing, and potentially respiratory drive regulation. But the class has more capable members now. More modern AMPA PAMs from academic groups and later pharma programs have been characterized with better methodology and more rigorous preclinical packages than anything the Cortex series produced.

On differentiation, CX-546 improves on CX-516, but thats a low bar. Compounds like CX-717 went further into development before the program collapsed. Within the ampakine class CX-546 is neither the first word nor the last. It’s a middle entry in a program that ran out of runway.

The bench value is real but bounded. If your research specifically requires an AMPA PAM with CX-546’s kinetic profile and you have a reason to distinguish it from other available tools, it is accessible as a research chemical. Most investigators who need an AMPA PAM, though, have better-characterized options with cleaner sourcing and more published method validation behind them. Vendor quality and purity certification for Cortex-generation ampakines is genuinely inconsistent across the supply chain.

Honest assessment: CX-546 is worth knowing about if you’re digging into the ampakine literature or running AMPA receptor assays where its specific kinetic profile is the variable of interest. For most bench programs it’s a historical artifact of a failed development program. Failed clinical translation, thin and single-source human data, and a class that has moved past it all point toward the lower third of our scale.

Novelty

33

Mechanism promise

52

In-category differentiation

33

Evidence quality

28

Translational signal

20

Research bench value

45

Rationale CX-546 earns modest mechanism and bench-value credit as a functional AMPA PAM probe with improved kinetics over CX-516 and an intellectually interesting respiratory-depression angle, but the Cortex program ended without pivotal human data in any indication, translational signal is essentially zero, and more modern AMPA PAMs have since been characterized with better methodology. The score reflects a compound that is a usable tool in a narrow context but not a priority research target.

Editorial commentary from Kodiac biolabs. Not a recommendation, not clinical advice. Research use only.

Benzoxazine ampakine

A second-generation Cortex Pharmaceuticals ampakine with improved AMPA receptor modulation kinetics and reduced respiratory depression liability.

Abstract

CX-546 (1-(1,4-benzodioxan-6-ylcarbonyl)piperidine; CAS 215923-54-9; molecular formula C14H17NO3; molecular weight 247.29) is a second-generation Cortex Pharmaceuticals ampakine in the benzoxazine subclass. The compound shows improved AMPA receptor modulation kinetics relative to CX-516, with deeper potentiation per binding event and longer-lasting effect. CX-546 was advanced through preclinical development for cognitive impairment and respiratory disorders (the AMPA potentiation can reverse opioid-induced respiratory depression in animal models). The compound did not advance through pivotal human trials in any indication. Pharmacokinetics: short plasma half-life (2 to 3 hours), oral bioavailability moderate. The compound is sold as a research chemical in jurisdictions where it is not scheduled. Research-grade vendor doses are typically 200 to 500 mg per administration in unvalidated human use, scaled from rodent doses.

Read the full monograph

The full reference document covers compound identification, discovery and developmental history, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, sourcing and quality verification, and a curated reference list. Embedded inline below; download for offline reading.

KDC-MN-055Open in new tab →

Download PDF →

FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. Not for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. Not for human consumption. All information is provided for research and educational purposes only.

May 9, 2026
Follistatin 315

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 70 / 100

Follistatin-315 is the 315-amino-acid isoform of follistatin, which differs from FST-344 by tissue distribution and binding partners. Same general myostatin-blocking function. Not stocked by Kodiac. This monograph is provided for research and educational reference.

Intrigue 0–100 blends mechanism novelty, evidence strength, and translational potential. Kodiac editorial, not peer-reviewed.

Our opinion on this compoundEstablished, active research

37/100

PK-improved follistatin isoform with real bench utility but thin isoform-specific clinical evidence

Look, follistatin biology is not new territory. The basic story, that sequestering myostatin and activin A produces meaningful muscle hypertrophy and anti-fibrotic effects, has been sitting in the literature since the landmark Lee and McPherron myostatin-knockout mouse work in the late 1990s. What FST-315 brings to the table isnt a new mechanism, it’s a pharmacokinetic refinement that actually matters for research design.

Here’s the thing about follistatin 344: it’s almost entirely tissue-bound. The C-terminal acidic tail drives strong heparan sulfate proteoglycan interactions at the cell surface, which means systemic delivery of FST-344 produces a compound that largely parks itself in local tissue rather than circulating. FST-315, produced by alternative splicing that removes that acidic region, has dramatically reduced heparin affinity and a correspondingly longer plasma half-life. For any research program trying to study systemic myostatin inhibition, this isnt a cosmetic difference. It changes what you can actually measure and when.

We think the mechanistic case is solid. Dual neutralization of both GDF-8 and activin A gives FST-315 a broader profile than single-target anti-myostatin antibodies like trevogrumab, and the activin A arm is increasingly interesting given the literature on activin signaling in cachexia, fibrosis, and bone biology. Bimagrumab, which targets ActRIIA/B (the receptor side of the same pathway), has real clinical traction in metabolic disease models, which at least validates the axis. FST-315 isnt bimagrumab, but it works upstream and hits both ligands rather than the receptor.

What we dont like: there’s no formal clinical development record for FST-315 as a distinct entity. Most of the relevant pharmacokinetic characterization comes from comparative isoform studies, not dedicated FST-315 programs. Human translational signal is essentially borrowed from follistatin biology broadly, and that borrowing is imperfect. The compound is sold as a research peptide with all the sourcing variability that implies.

As a bench tool for investigators studying myostatin/activin signaling in muscle or fibrotic contexts, FST-315 has genuine utility over FST-344 for systemic dosing designs. Thats not nothing. But the dedicated literature is thin, replication outside of foundational isoform characterization studies is limited, and the compound is sitting in a well-understood mechanistic class with more clinically advanced alternatives already in development. Honest assessment: interesting tool, clear rationale for preferring it over FST-344 in certain designs, but not a frontier compound by current standards.

Novelty

38

Mechanism promise

45

In-category differentiation

42

Evidence quality

28

Translational signal

22

Research bench value

48

Rationale FST-315 sits in an active and well-grounded biological space (myostatin/activin A antagonism) but its isoform-specific literature is sparse; the differentiation story is real and mechanistically coherent (reduced heparin binding, longer half-life) but the compound has no independent clinical development record, keeping evidence and translational scores low and dragging the overall into the mid-30s.

Editorial commentary from Kodiac biolabs. Not a recommendation, not clinical advice. Research use only.

Myostatin antagonist / follistatin isoform

A 315-residue isoform of follistatin with reduced heparin binding and longer plasma half-life than follistatin 344.

Abstract

Follistatin 315 is a 315-residue isoform of follistatin produced by alternative splicing of the FST gene, lacking the C-terminal acidic region present in follistatin 344. The compound has reduced heparin binding (which improves plasma circulation; follistatin 344 is largely tissue-bound through cell surface heparan sulfate) and a longer plasma half-life. Like follistatin 344, the compound antagonizes myostatin (GDF-8) and activin A. The compound is sold as a research peptide. There is no formal clinical development record. Investigational doses parallel follistatin 344; safety considerations are similar.

Read the full monograph

The full reference document covers compound identification, discovery and developmental history, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, sourcing and quality verification, and a curated reference list. Embedded inline below; download for offline reading.

KDC-MN-090Open in new tab →

Download PDF →

FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. Not for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. Not for human consumption. All information is provided for research and educational purposes only.

May 9, 2026
Rhodiola Rosea

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 60 / 100

Rhodiola rosea is an adaptogenic root from Arctic regions. The compound class rhodiosides (rhodiolosides) and rosavins are believed to mediate the anti-fatigue and stress-resistance effects. Used widely in Russia and Scandinavia for over 50 years. Not stocked by Kodiac. This monograph is provided for research and educational reference.

Intrigue 0–100 blends mechanism novelty, evidence strength, and translational potential. Kodiac editorial, not peer-reviewed.

Our opinion on this compoundEstablished workhorse

31/100

A well-studied adaptogen with solid fatigue data but few open research questions left

Look, Rhodiola actually earned something most of the botanical supplement space can’t claim: a real standardized extract with legitimate RCT support. The SHR-5 formulation went through a credible series of trials in the early 2000s, Spasov 2000, Shevtsov 2003, Edwards 2012, and they returned genuine fatigue attenuation signals with reasonable methodology. That’s not nothing. We don’t want to dismiss it, and we won’t.

But here’s the thing: that evidence base is basically the ceiling of what Rhodiola offers, not a floor to build from. The compound has been studied seriously since the Soviet era. Active constituents are identified and characterized. The mechanism story is HPA axis modulation plus modest MAO inhibition plus generalized antioxidant activity, and thats it. None of those mechanisms are frontier territory. HPA axis biology is decades old. MAO inhibition has literature going back to the 1950s. The antioxidant angle is table stakes for any phenolic-rich plant extract. A serious bench scientist scanning the landscape in 2026 finds no new mechanism here.

The differentiation problem compounds this. In the adaptogen category, Rhodiola competes directly with ashwagandha (KSM-66 trials now offer arguably cleaner stress and cortisol data), panax ginseng (long history, meaningful mechanistic overlap), and eleutherococcus. Rhodiola leads many of them on clinical trial quality, but it isnt defining the category. Best-in-a-crowded-bracket is a different claim than best-in-class, and the gap matters when youre deciding what to study next.

What we don’t see is a compelling open question that Rhodiola uniquely answers. It’s not a clean probe for a receptor system. It’s not an entry point into an underexplored signaling pathway. If your lab were running a stress-tolerance or HPA program, Rhodiola would appear as a positive control or reference extract, not a lead compound. Salidroside has one thread worth pulling: some recent work touching AMPK-adjacent activity and mitophagy hasn’t been fully resolved. But the compound as a whole doesn’t give you a question you couldn’t answer with something more targeted.

Honest read: Rhodiola did the work, built a credible evidence base, and sits well above the junk tier. It’s not a fraud. But its scientific moment was probably 2005 to 2015. The frontier questions have mostly been answered, and in a resource-constrained research environment, cleaner and more novel targets will nearly always win the prioritization argument.

Novelty

20

Mechanism promise

22

In-category differentiation

28

Evidence quality

52

Translational signal

48

Research bench value

22

Rationale Rhodiola’s novelty and mechanism ceilings are both low: HPA axis modulation, modest MAO inhibition, and generalized antioxidant activity don’t constitute frontier pharmacology in 2026. Evidence quality is genuinely above average for a botanical, but the compound is mature, differentiation within the adaptogen class is modest, and bench probe value is minimal.

Editorial commentary from Kodiac biolabs. Not a recommendation, not clinical advice. Research use only.

Adaptogenic root extract

A root extract from the arctic adaptogen Rhodiola rosea standardized to rosavins and salidroside, with documented anti-fatigue and stress-tolerance effects.

Abstract

Rhodiola rosea is a perennial root used in traditional Russian, Scandinavian, and Chinese medicine for fatigue, stress, and cognitive enhancement. The active constituents include rosavins (rosavin, rosin, rosarin) and salidroside (a phenolic glycoside), with most clinical preparations standardized to 3 percent rosavins and 1 percent salidroside (the SHR-5 extract used in Russian and Swedish trials). Multiple randomized trials have demonstrated improvements in fatigue measures, mental performance under stress, and depressive symptoms. Mechanism includes modulation of HPA axis cortisol response, monoamine oxidase inhibition (modest), and antioxidant activity. Doses are typically 200 to 600 mg of the standardized extract per day. The compound is sold widely as a dietary supplement.

Read the full monograph

The full reference document covers compound identification, discovery and developmental history, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, sourcing and quality verification, and a curated reference list. Embedded inline below; download for offline reading.

KDC-MN-107Open in new tab →

Download PDF →

FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. Not for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. Not for human consumption. All information is provided for research and educational purposes only.

May 9, 2026
DSIP (Delta Sleep Inducing Peptide)

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 60 / 100

DSIP (delta sleep-inducing peptide) is a 9-amino-acid neuropeptide that consolidates deep slow-wave sleep. Used historically in research as a sleep aid, particularly for opioid withdrawal. Not stocked by Kodiac. This monograph is provided for research and educational reference.

Intrigue 0–100 blends mechanism novelty, evidence strength, and translational potential. Kodiac editorial, not peer-reviewed.

Our opinion on this compoundEstablished workhorse

30/100

Endogenous sleep nonapeptide with uncharacterized mechanism and five decades of modest, variable results

Look, DSIP has a great origin story. The Schoenenberger-Monnier group pulls a nonapeptide out of rabbit cerebral venous blood during slow-wave sleep in 1977, names it Delta Sleep Inducing Peptide, and you’d think the field was off to the races. Forty-seven years later we’re still arguing about what receptor it binds, what signaling it drives, and whether the sleep effect is real or an artifact of model selection. Thats not a good sign for a compound this old.

The mechanism problem is the core issue here. Most peptides that have stayed in the literature this long have at least earned a defined receptor or downstream target. DSIP hasn’t. Binding sites are unconfirmed, downstream effectors are hypothesized rather than demonstrated, and the endogenous plasma and CSF concentrations oscillate with circadian rhythm in ways that suggest a role in sleep architecture but don’t specify it. We’d normally credit a compound for having a novel, incompletely understood mechanism when the incompleteness is recent. Here it’s not recent; it’s just unresolved after decades of work, which is a different thing entirely.

The clinical record is thin and honest about its thinness. The alcohol and opioid withdrawal studies from the 1980s and 90s showed some signal, but the designs were small, controls were inconsistent, and follow-up replication never materialized in a serious way. The chronic pain work is similarly suggestive without being convincing. Even the sleep effect itself, which is literally in the name, comes out as modest and variable across independent labs. When your flagship claim can’t reliably replicate over five decades, you have to question whether the effect is real at the doses studied or real only in specific species or preparation conditions.

Where we do give DSIP some credit is as a target for investigators specifically working on endogenous neuropeptide contributions to sleep regulation and stress response. It’s one of the few characterized endogenous peptides with proposed roles across sleep, circadian gating, and HPA-axis modulation, even if none of those roles are well-defined mechanistically. If your lab is trying to map what the brain does to signal sleep onset at the peptide level, DSIP is a legitimate object of study. It’s just not a tool you’d trust as a probe for a defined pathway, because the pathway isn’t defined.

Honestly, DSIP is a compound the field has never quite given up on and never quite validated. The score reflects that honestly.

Novelty

30

Mechanism promise

22

In-category differentiation

22

Evidence quality

38

Translational signal

30

Research bench value

40

Rationale DSIP scores low primarily because its mechanism remains undefined after 47 years of study, its flagship effect is conceded to be modest and variable even by its proponents, and it has been outcompeted in every clinical indication it touched. The bench value credit is real but limited: as a probe for endogenous sleep-regulatory neuropeptide signaling it’s interesting in principle, but you can’t use an uncharacterized binding site as a reliable experimental handle.

Editorial commentary from Kodiac biolabs. Not a recommendation, not clinical advice. Research use only.

Nonapeptide neuropeptide

An endogenous nonapeptide isolated from rabbit cerebral venous blood with sleep-promoting and stress-modulating activity.

Abstract

DSIP (Trp-Ala-Gly-Gly-Asp-Ala-Ser-Gly-Glu; CAS 62568-57-4; molecular weight 848.81) is a nonapeptide isolated in 1977 by the Schoenenberger-Monnier group from rabbit cerebral venous blood collected during electrically induced slow-wave sleep. The compound is endogenously present in mammalian brain and plasma, with proposed roles in sleep regulation, stress response, and circadian rhythm modulation. Despite the name, the sleep-promoting effect is modest and variable across studies. Mechanism is incompletely characterized; binding sites and downstream signaling have not been definitively established. The compound has been studied in alcohol withdrawal, opioid withdrawal, and chronic pain. Administered subcutaneously or intranasally; oral bioavailability is poor. Research-grade doses are typically 100 to 500 micrograms per administration.

Read the full monograph

The full reference document covers compound identification, discovery and developmental history, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, sourcing and quality verification, and a curated reference list. Embedded inline below; download for offline reading.

KDC-MN-123Open in new tab →

Download PDF →

FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. Not for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. Not for human consumption. All information is provided for research and educational purposes only.

May 9, 2026
BNN-27

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 70 / 100

BNN-27 is a synthetic neurosteroid derivative of DHEA developed at the BRFAA in Athens. It mimics nerve growth factor (NGF) without activating other DHEA pathways. Investigated for neurodegeneration. Not stocked by Kodiac. This monograph is provided for research and educational reference.

Intrigue 0–100 blends mechanism novelty, evidence strength, and translational potential. Kodiac editorial, not peer-reviewed.

Our opinion on this compoundNovel, promising

53/100

Selective TrkA agonist with a genuinely novel scaffold; single-lab evidence limits confidence

BNN-27 is one of the more conceptually elegant compounds we’ve come across in the neurotrophin space. The Gravanis group at the University of Crete has been quietly building a case for a class they call micronutrotropins: small steroid-derived molecules that can engage TrkA, the high-affinity NGF receptor, without triggering p75NTR. That distinction matters more than it might look at first glance. p75NTR is the “dark side” receptor in neurotrophin biology. Under conditions where TrkA is absent or outcompeted, p75NTR can drive apoptosis rather than survival signaling. Separating those two pharmacologically is a genuinely useful thing to do, and not many compounds come close.

What we like here is the scaffold decision. BNN-27 sits on a modified DHEA backbone with a spiroepoxy-thiazoline substituent at C17. It’s a real small molecule, orally bioavailable by rodent data, and CNS-penetrant by inference from the steroid core. That matters because NGF itself is a 26kDa protein with essentially no practical pharmacokinetic profile for CNS applications. Getting TrkA activation from something you can put in a gavage tube, or theoretically formulate for systemic delivery, is the entire pharmacological problem the compound is designed to solve.

The evidence base is where we have to be direct. This is basically a single-lab story. The Gravanis group and Bionature E.A. Ltd have published BNN-27 data in rodent models of diabetic peripheral neuropathy, retinal ganglion cell degeneration, and amyloid-related neurotoxicity. The preclinical results are consistently positive. But consistently positive rodent results from a single consortium are a yellow flag, not a green one. Independent replication has not materialized in any meaningful way, and the methodology is hard to assess from the outside when the compound and the publications come from the same source.

Theres also no clinical data. Not even a phase 1 safety readout. The compound has circulated in the preclinical literature for well over a decade without attracting the external interest needed to push it into human studies. That gap says something about how the broader field has weighted the evidence, even accounting for the capital-intensive nature of novel neurotrophin programs.

For bench researchers, though, BNN-27 has real probe value right now. If your program involves dissecting TrkA-specific survival signaling from p75NTR-mediated death pathways, this is probably your cleanest available small-molecule tool. The selectivity profile is well-characterized in Gravanis lab conditions, and the underlying mechanistic hypothesis is sound. We think investigators working on neurodegeneration models, retinal biology, or diabetic neuropathy should have this on the radar as a tool compound. Just dont treat it as a validated therapeutic lead until someone outside the originating lab replicates the signal.

Novelty

65

Mechanism promise

72

In-category differentiation

60

Evidence quality

25

Translational signal

30

Research bench value

55

Rationale BNN-27 earns its novelty and mechanism scores for the elegant separation of TrkA from p75NTR signaling via a small, orally bioavailable steroid scaffold, a genuinely underexplored pharmacological angle in neurotrophin biology; evidence quality and translational signal are dragged down hard by single-consortium preclinical work and a complete absence of human data after more than a decade in the literature.

Editorial commentary from Kodiac biolabs. Not a recommendation, not clinical advice. Research use only.

Synthetic DHEA derivative / NGF mimetic

A synthetic DHEA derivative (17-spiroepoxy DHEA) developed at Bionature E.A. Ltd as a selective TrkA agonist mimicking NGF activity.

Abstract

BNN-27 (17-spiro-(2′-amino-1′,3′-thiazolin-2-yl)-androst-5-en-3-beta-ol) is a synthetic DHEA derivative developed by Bionature E.A. Ltd (Greece) and Achilleas Gravanis’s group for selective activation of TrkA, the high-affinity NGF receptor. The compound is a microneurotrophin: it mimics the NGF/TrkA pathway without binding to the p75 neurotrophin receptor (NTR). Animal studies show neuroprotective effects in models of diabetic neuropathy, retinal degeneration, and Alzheimer disease. The compound has not advanced to large clinical trials. Pharmacokinetics: oral bioavailability is good (steroid scaffold). Sold as research peptide/compound.

Read the full monograph

The full reference document covers compound identification, discovery and developmental history, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, sourcing and quality verification, and a curated reference list. Embedded inline below; download for offline reading.

KDC-MN-139Open in new tab →

Download PDF →

FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. Not for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. Not for human consumption. All information is provided for research and educational purposes only.

May 9, 2026
Mitragynine (Kratom)

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 70 / 100

Mitragynine is the principal alkaloid of kratom (Mitragyna speciosa), a Southeast Asian tree. It is a partial mu-opioid receptor agonist; at low doses it has stimulant effects, at higher doses opioid-like effects. Controversial regulatory status in the US. Not stocked by Kodiac. This monograph is provided for research and educational reference.

Intrigue 0–100 blends mechanism novelty, evidence strength, and translational potential. Kodiac editorial, not peer-reviewed.

Indole alkaloid / partial mu-opioid agonist

The principal alkaloid of Mitragyna speciosa (kratom), a partial mu-opioid agonist with low respiratory depression liability and significant abuse and dependence potential.

Abstract

Mitragynine (CAS 4098-40-2; molecular formula C23H30N2O4; molecular weight 398.49) is the principal indole alkaloid of Mitragyna speciosa (kratom), a tree native to Southeast Asia. The compound and its 7-hydroxymetabolite are partial mu-opioid receptor agonists with G-protein-biased signaling that produces analgesia with reduced respiratory depression compared with classical opioids at equivalent analgesic potency. Kratom and mitragynine have substantial dependence and addiction liability with chronic use; FDA has issued multiple warnings, and DEA has attempted scheduling (currently not federally scheduled but prohibited in some states). The compound is sold as kratom leaf, kratom extracts, and isolated mitragynine. Doses are highly variable; typical kratom leaf doses are 1 to 5 grams.

Read the full monograph

The full reference document covers compound identification, discovery and developmental history, mechanism of action, pharmacokinetics, sourcing and quality verification, and a curated reference list. Embedded inline below; download for offline reading.

KDC-MN-155Open in new tab →

Download PDF →

FOR RESEARCH USE ONLY. Not for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes. Not for human consumption. All information is provided for research and educational purposes only.

May 9, 2026

←Previous Page

1 … 56 57 58 59 60 … 69

Bench-grade research compounds. Cited research. Verified COAs.

kodiac.bio

Explore

Shop
Monographs
Lab Results
About
Affiliate program
Affiliate handbook

Account

Cart
My account

Help

Compliance
Contact

Quarterly dispatch

New batches and new monographs only. Unsubscribe in one click.

Write to us from the contact page to join the list.

Kodiac biolabs sells research compounds for in vitro and in vivo investigative purposes only. Products are not for human or veterinary consumption. Not for medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic use. By using this site you confirm you are acquiring research compounds for research purposes only.

Kodiac biolabs is not affiliated with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Products are research reagents, have not been evaluated by the FDA, and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.

© 2026 Kodiac biolabs LLC. All rights reserved.