Skip to content

Shop
Scholar
Lab Results
Learn
Vote
Forum
About

Search Kodiac

Sign in Sign up Account

Tag: MONOGRAPH

Mazdutide

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 72 / 100

Mazdutide is a long-acting dual GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist developed by Eli Lilly and out-licensed to Innovent Biologics for development in China. Mechanistically similar to cotadutide and the natural peptide oxyntomodulin, but with a fatty-acid extension supporting once-weekly rather than daily dosing. Phase 2 trials in Chinese type 2 diabetes and obesity populations showed dose-dependent weight loss and HbA1c reduction comparable to or exceeding semaglutide at higher dose tiers. Phase 3 trials are ongoing in China. It is shaping up to be the first dual GLP-1/glucagon agonist to reach a major market, beating its Western competitors. 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 Kodiac editorial, not peer-reviewed.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

55/100

Solid dual GLP-1/glucagon agonist with real Phase 2 human signal, but a crowded class and triple-agonist competition cap its ceiling

Look, mazdutide is a genuinely interesting peptide in a genuinely crowded lane. It’s a dual GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonist — modified glucagon backbone, GLP-1 activity grafted in, C18 fatty acid extension for once-weekly dosing — developed by Lilly and out-licensed to Innovent Biologics for the Chinese market. The mechanism does something single GLP-1 agonists don’t: the glucagon arm drives measurable thermogenesis and energy expenditure on top of the GLP-1-mediated appetite suppression, which is at least theoretically a better handle on weight loss than appetite alone.

Here’s the thing though. The dual GLP-1/glucagon mechanism isn’t new. Oxyntomodulin is the natural endogenous template. Cotadutide (AstraZeneca/Pfizer) ran into this space years ago. Survodutide from Boehringer Ingelheim is also in late development on the same dual axis. So mazdutide isn’t defining its category — its competing for second or third position in a class that retatrutide (triple GIP/GLP-1/glucagon) is already threatening to supersede entirely. On differentiation, the compound’s phase 2 data is encouraging — dose-dependent HbA1c reduction and weight outcomes at higher tiers that track with or slightly exceed semaglutide — but thats not the same as being best-in-class when tirzepatide and retatrutide exist.

We think the evidence base is legitimately respectable for where mazdutide sits developmentally. Phase 2 data are real, multi-site, and the DREAMS Phase 3 program in China is ongoing. There’s a clear human signal for the mechanism, which is more than most peptides in the library can claim. What we dont get is the certainty of full Phase 3 readout or the regulatory history that would push evidence quality into the 70s.

From a research bench standpoint, mazdutide is useful primarily as a reference compound for the long-acting dual GLP-1/glucagon format. Investigators studying the glucagon thermogenesis contribution, the energy expenditure differential versus pure GLP-1, or the pharmacokinetic profile of C18-extended dual agonists have a reason to reach for it. It’s not irreplaceable — survodutide and cotadutide cover overlapping ground — but it’s a credible tool in that niche.

Honestly, the compound’s story is hard to tell without returning to the question of where it sits relative to retatrutide. If triple agonists prove out in Phase 3 with the weight loss magnitude early data suggests, dual GLP-1/glucagon becomes a historical stepping stone rather than a destination. Mazdutide is worth watching, worth understanding, and a solid addition to a research library focused on incretin pharmacology. It’s just not the lead compound in that conversation anymore.

Novelty

58

Mechanism promise

73

In-category differentiation

35

Evidence quality

54

Translational signal

62

Research bench value

48

Rationale Mazdutide scores well on mechanism and translational signal — the glucagon-driven energy expenditure layer on top of GLP-1 appetite suppression is real pharmacology with Phase 2 HbA1c and weight data to back it — but differentiation is the key drag: cotadutide, survodutide, and above all retatrutide make mazdutide a follower in a class it doesn’t define. The compound’s China-centric development trajectory also limits global bench relevance.

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

GLP-1 / glucagon dual receptor agonist

A long-acting dual GLP-1 and glucagon receptor agonist; under development for obesity and type 2 diabetes.

Abstract

Mazdutide (IBI362, LY3305677; modified peptide with glucagon backbone and GLP-1 modifications; molecular weight approximately 4500 Da) is a dual GLP-1/glucagon receptor agonist developed by Eli Lilly and out-licensed to Innovent Biologics for development in China. The compound is structurally and mechanistically similar to cotadutide and oxyntomodulin, with C18 fatty acid extension for once-weekly dosing. Phase 2 trials in type 2 diabetes and obesity demonstrated dose-dependent HbA1c reduction and weight loss comparable to or exceeding semaglutide at higher dose tiers. Phase 3 trials are ongoing in China (DREAMS program) and US. The dual mechanism produces increased energy expenditure (glucagon effect) on top of the GLP-1 appetite suppression. Used as a reference long-acting dual GLP-1/glucagon agonist.

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-296Open 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
URB597

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 60 / 100

URB597 is the standard research tool for blocking the FAAH enzyme that breaks down anandamide. Developed by Daniele Piomelli’s group at UC Irvine, it permanently inactivates FAAH by latching onto the active site, which raises endogenous anandamide for hours without giving cannabinoids directly. In animal studies it produces anxiolytic and analgesic effects without the cognitive impairment or reward signal that comes with direct CB1 activation, suggesting that elevated endocannabinoid tone might be therapeutically useful. The compound itself never reached human trials, but it laid the conceptual groundwork for clinical FAAH inhibitors like PF-04457845. 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

55/100

Canonical FAAH probe with strong bench utility but murky translational story after Phase 2 MDD failure

Look, if you work in endocannabinoid biology, URB597 is probably already sitting on your shelf. Piomelli’s group at UC Irvine gave the field a genuinely clean probe: a covalent carbamate that carbamoylates the active-site serine of FAAH, producing irreversible inhibition with real selectivity over MAGL and other lipid hydrolases. That mechanism is what we like most about this compound. You’re not agonizing CB1 directly; you’re elevating endogenous anandamide and the other N-acylethanolamines and letting the system respond on its own terms. The pharmacological consequence is real and distinguishable from THC-like full agonism: anxiolytic and analgesic signal without the catalepsy, hypothermia, or intoxication that makes direct CB1 agonists so hard to work with in behavioral models.

The selectivity story holds up across labs. Multiple groups have used URB597 to dissect FAAH’s role in pain processing, fear extinction, and stress-induced analgesia, and the results have replicated reasonably well. The FAAH inhibition literature is one of the more coherent bodies of work to come out of the eCB field, and URB597 is at the center of it. If you’re running a FAAH knockout against a pharmacological model, URB597 is your positive control. There isnt a cleaner option for acute pharmacological FAAH inhibition in preclinical work right now.

Here’s the thing, though. The Phase 2 clinical trial in major depressive disorder didn’t pan out. No efficacy signal worth advancing to Phase 3. That failure doesnt invalidate the probe, and it doesn’t mean FAAH inhibition is biologically inert in humans, but it does mean the translational story is murky. The anxiolytic preclinical data hasn’t cleanly mapped to any approved indication. Pain is still an open question. The newer selective FAAH inhibitors like PF-04457845 showed early promise in pain work and also stalled. The BIA 10-2474 safety disaster in France in 2016 cast a shadow over the whole class even though URB597’s own selectivity profile looks meaningfully better. That shadow hasn’t fully lifted from the field’s reputation.

What does this mean for the research score? We think URB597 earns its place as a bench tool. It’s the reference probe for a still-active area of neuropharmacology. The endocannabinoid tone hypothesis isn’t dead; it’s waiting on better target engagement biomarkers and possibly a different indication space. The compound has enough replicated literature behind it that you know exactly what you’re getting. We don’t think it’s a priority new research direction, though. The novelty is gone, the clinical signal is weak, and the field has been trying to translate FAAH inhibition for over a decade with limited success. As a probe for answering specific mechanistic questions about eCB tone: yes, absolutely. As an exciting frontier research target in its own right: no. That’s a 55.

Novelty

38

Mechanism promise

60

In-category differentiation

65

Evidence quality

58

Translational signal

40

Research bench value

75

Rationale URB597 scores high on bench value as the definitive reference FAAH inhibitor in endocannabinoid research, but failed Phase 2 MDD trials and a decade of limited clinical translation drag the overall down hard. It earns its place in any serious eCB research program as a probe, not as a frontier therapeutic lead.

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

Selective FAAH inhibitor (research)

A carbamate inhibitor of fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH); the canonical research probe for elevating endogenous anandamide.

Abstract

URB597 (KDS-4103, cyclohexyl carbamic acid 3′-carbamoyl-biphenyl-3-yl ester; CAS 546141-08-6; molecular formula C20H22N2O3; molecular weight 338.40) is a covalent carbamate inhibitor of fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH) developed by Piomelli and colleagues at UC Irvine. The compound carbamoylates the active-site serine of FAAH, producing irreversible enzyme inactivation. Selective for FAAH over MAGL and other lipases. Pharmacological consequence: elevation of endogenous anandamide and other N-acylethanolamides without direct CB receptor agonism. The behavioral profile differs from direct CB1 agonists like THC: anxiolytic and analgesic effects without the catalepsy, hypothermia, and intoxication characteristic of CB1 full agonism. Phase 2 clinical trials in major depressive disorder did not demonstrate efficacy; the compound did not advance to phase 3. Plasma half-life is approximately 6 hours; the irreversible mechanism produces effective FAAH inhibition for 24-48 hours after a single dose. Used as the canonical FAAH inhibitor in academic neuroscience.

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-328Open 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
Dexmedetomidine

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 68 / 100

Dexmedetomidine, sold as Precedex, is an intravenous sedative that works through alpha-2A adrenergic receptors in the brainstem rather than through the GABA system used by virtually every other sedative. The unusual mechanism has a clinically remarkable consequence: it produces sedation that resembles natural sleep, from which patients can be awakened to follow commands, without depressing respiration. It is heavily used in intensive care units for ventilated patients and procedural sedation. The main side effects are bradycardia and hypotension from systemic alpha-2 activation. 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

55/100

Best-in-class alpha-2A probe with deep clinical evidence but low novelty and a narrow research niche

Look, dexmedetomidine is genuinely useful, and we want to be precise about why that doesnt translate into a high score here. The compound has been approved since 1999 under Precedex, the mechanism is textbook-level understood, and the clinical story is already told. ICU sedation, procedural sedation, arousable sleep-mimicking pharmacology via locus coeruleus alpha-2A activation. None of that is surprising to anyone who’s opened an anesthesia pharmacology chapter in the last two decades.

What dexmedetomidine does have going for it is probe selectivity. The 1620-fold preference for alpha-2 over alpha-1 receptors is substantially cleaner than clonidine, which sits closer to 200-fold. If you’re running experiments that require isolating alpha-2A-mediated effects without alpha-1 contamination, dexmedetomidine is the tool. Thats the bench value case, and it’s real. Its why the compound ends up in papers on adrenergic receptor subtype biology, sympatholytic pharmacology, delirium prevention mechanisms, and the neurochemistry of natural sleep versus drug-induced sedation. As a pharmacological probe, it earns its place on the shelf.

But the research conversation around dexmedetomidine isnt particularly live or frontier-facing. The mechanism of action at the locus coeruleus and spinal cord is fully characterized. The clinical evidence base is robust by any measure, which is exactly the problem from a novelty perspective. When a drug has undergone decades of multicenter trials and sits in anesthesiology formularies worldwide, the interesting questions have mostly been answered. What’s left is refinement: pediatric dosing optimization, opioid-sparing protocols, delirium incidence in specific ICU subpopulations. Legitimate work, but not the kind that demands a dedicated research program for a bench scientist who isn’t already in that clinical orbit.

We think the differentiation score is the honest bright spot. Among alpha-2 agonists available as research tools, dexmedetomidine is clearly the reference standard. Clonidine is cheaper and more accessible but pharmacologically messier. Guanfacine has the alpha-2A selectivity story but in a different pharmacokinetic and CNS-distribution context. For receptor-level mechanistic work, dex is the right choice. That matters for labs doing adrenergic subtype work or investigating the molecular basis of norepinephrine-mediated sedation.

Honestly, the 55 reflects a compound that is precisely as useful as it looks and not one point more. It’s not overlooked, not underrated, not sitting on a hidden research signal. The literature is mature, the mechanism is settled, and the novelty clock stopped running a long time ago. Serious researchers in alpha-2A biology or ICU neuroscience will already know it. Everyone else can deprioritize it without missing anything.

Novelty

20

Mechanism promise

40

In-category differentiation

65

Evidence quality

78

Translational signal

72

Research bench value

75

Rationale Dexmedetomidine scores high on differentiation and bench value because its 1620:1 alpha-2:alpha-1 selectivity makes it the canonical tool for isolating alpha-2A-specific effects, but the compound is 25 years old, the mechanism is fully characterized, and the translational story is already written by the FDA approval. Score reflects a useful but unexciting research probe, not a frontier target.

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

Selective alpha-2A adrenergic agonist (anesthetic)

A potent selective alpha-2A adrenergic agonist; an intravenous sedative producing arousable sedation without respiratory depression.

Abstract

Dexmedetomidine ((S)-4-[1-(2,3-dimethylphenyl)ethyl]-1H-imidazole; CAS 113775-47-6; molecular formula C13H16N2; molecular weight 200.28) is a highly selective alpha-2A adrenergic agonist developed at Farmos and approved by the FDA in 1999 (Precedex). The compound is the active S-enantiomer of medetomidine (used in veterinary anesthesia). Alpha-2A selectivity over alpha-2B and alpha-2C is approximately 8-fold; selectivity over alpha-1 is approximately 1620-fold, much higher than clonidine. The clinical profile is unique: the alpha-2A activation in the locus coeruleus produces sedation that mimics natural sleep architecture, with patients arousable on stimulation; respiratory drive is preserved. Approved indications: ICU sedation, procedural sedation, conscious sedation. Plasma half-life is approximately 2 hours; metabolism is hepatic. Used as the canonical highly selective alpha-2A agonist in anesthesia 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-343Open 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
Stamulumab (MYO-029)

Our opinion on this compoundNiche research probe

37/100

First-in-class anti-myostatin antibody with clinical failure and residual selective probe value

Here’s the thing about stamulumab: it earns its place in the historical record as the first IgG1 antibody to selectively neutralize circulating myostatin (GDF-8), and the Wyeth program that produced it genuinely opened up an entire research program in muscle biology. But history and utility aren’t the same thing, and by now the compound has largely been superseded by what came after it.

The Phase 1/2 trial data is what it is. Across becker muscular dystrophy, facioscapulohumeral dystrophy, and limb-girdle dystrophy cohorts, stamulumab showed acceptable tolerability but produced muscle mass gains in the range of 0.5 to 1 percent. That’s not a rounding error on a real signal. That’s essentially not working. Wyeth (later Pfizer) chose not to advance it, which was the rational call. The compound’s mechanism is real, myostatin is a real negative regulator of skeletal muscle, but stamulumab itself didn’t translate the biology into a meaningful clinical effect.

What we find genuinely interesting is how the stamulumab failure shaped the next generation. Bimagrumab took a smarter angle, blocking ActRIIA/B at the receptor level rather than neutralizing circulating myostatin directly, and has achieved substantially larger lean mass effects in sarcopenia and metabolic disease trials. Domagrozumab and landogrozumab came later with refined anti-myostatin approaches. All of them owe something to stamulumab’s proof-of-concept work and failure map. That’s a real contribution to the field, even if it doesn’t push the compound’s score higher.

For a bench investigator, stamulumab still has some value as a selective myostatin neutralizer. If the research question is specifically about circulating GDF-8 and you want a well-characterized antibody with documented pharmacokinetics across multiple dose levels in actual humans, it’s a legitimate probe. Most research antibodies don’t have that. But we’d be honest: for most muscle biology programs, bimagrumab or more recent tools are going to be the better choice on nearly every dimension, including efficacy signal and mechanism breadth.

Thats the core issue here. The compound isn’t retracted, it isn’t disproven, the target is real. But it’s been outperformed on efficacy and superseded on mechanism design. It scores where it scores because it’s historically significant but no longer the leading edge of the question it helped define. For narrow, GDF-8-specific probe work, fine. For a general muscle biology or sarcopenia program, we’d look at the compounds stamulumab inspired before we’d reach for stamulumab itself.

Novelty

35

Mechanism promise

48

In-category differentiation

22

Evidence quality

50

Translational signal

25

Research bench value

45

Rationale Stamulumab was genuinely first-in-class for myostatin neutralization but Phase 1/2 data returned only 0.5-1% muscle mass gains across three dystrophy populations, deemed insufficient for advancement; it retains narrow probe utility for selective GDF-8 research but has been superseded by bimagrumab and later-generation agents on both mechanism design and clinical signal.

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

Anti-myostatin monoclonal antibody (research)

A humanized monoclonal antibody selective for myostatin (GDF-8); the first-in-class anti-myostatin antibody investigated for muscular dystrophy.

Abstract

Stamulumab (MYO-029; humanized IgG1 monoclonal antibody; molecular weight approximately 145 kDa) is a humanized monoclonal antibody selective for myostatin (GDF-8), developed at Wyeth (now Pfizer). The compound binds circulating myostatin in plasma, neutralizing the negative regulator of muscle growth. Phase 1/2 trials in adults with becker muscular dystrophy, facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy, and limb-girdle muscular dystrophy demonstrated tolerability but limited muscle mass increases (approximately 0.5 to 1 percent), which were considered insufficient to justify advancement. The compound is the first-in-class anti-myostatin antibody and informed subsequent development of bimagrumab (broader receptor target), domagrozumab, and landogrozumab. Used as a research compound for selective myostatin neutralization.

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-360Open 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
D-Cycloserine

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 70 / 100

D-cycloserine is an old tuberculosis antibiotic isolated from a Streptomyces bacterium and approved in 1956. Decades later researchers noticed it also acts as a partial agonist at the NMDA glycine site, meaning it activates the receptor but only about halfway. That partial behavior makes its effect dose-dependent: at low doses it boosts NMDA function (because endogenous co-agonists are not saturating the site), at high doses it actually competes with the full natural agonists and dampens NMDA signaling. The low-dose facilitating effect inspired its use as an extinction-learning enhancer paired with exposure therapy for phobia, PTSD, OCD, and social anxiety. Trials show modest effects with strict timing requirements (give it shortly before therapy or it does not work). Canonical NMDA glycine-site partial agonist. 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

49/100

The canonical NMDA glycine-site probe, clinically useful but past peak novelty in extinction-learning research

Look, D-cycloserine is one of those compounds that lives two separate lives, and you have to score both honestly. As an antibiotic it’s been FDA-approved since 1956 and is thoroughly, almost painfully, understood. As an NMDA glycine-site partial agonist it became one of the more interesting pharmacological tools of the 1990s and 2000s, and that second life is why it belongs in this library at all.

The mechanism is genuinely worth understanding. D-cycloserine sits at the NMDA receptor glycine co-agonist site and behaves as a partial agonist with roughly 40-60 percent intrinsic activity. That creates a bidirectional dose-response profile that most researchers find counterintuitive at first: at concentrations below the endogenous glycine/D-serine tone, it potentiates NMDA function; at higher concentrations it competes with the full co-agonists and acts as a functional antagonist. The extinction-learning hypothesis follows directly from that lower-dose facilitating effect. NMDA receptor activation during extinction memory consolidation is necessary for durable fear reduction, and pre-session dosing with D-cycloserine was supposed to amplify exactly that window. It’s elegant pharmacology on paper.

What we dont love is what the clinical literature actually delivered. The extinction-learning trials in PTSD, OCD, phobia, and social anxiety disorder span two decades and multiple serious groups, including Michael Davis’s lab at Emory, Edna Foa’s group, and several independent European programs. The results are real but modest and frustratingly timing-dependent. Get the dosing window wrong and you may consolidate a worse extinction session rather than a better one. Meta-analyses have consistently struggled to show a clean, reproducible effect across disorders. The signal isn’t gone, but it’s smaller and less reliable than the early data suggested. Translational enthusiasm has cooled appropriately.

Here’s the thing, though: as a bench tool this compound is essentially irreplaceable. If you’re running any research program that touches NMDA receptor glycine-site pharmacology, fear extinction circuits, or the interface between NMDA modulation and behavioral plasticity, D-cycloserine is the reference standard. Nothing else occupies this exact pharmacological niche with its combination of FDA approval, known PK, and decades of protocol literature. For investigators in those areas it’s not optional; it’s the probe you reach for first when you need to ask whether glycine-site occupancy is doing the work you think it is.

We’d call it a niche probe with a legitimate but fully mature research story. The interesting questions it can still answer are mechanistic and tool-level questions, not frontier indication questions. Score reflects that honestly: high bench value, genuine differentiation within its niche, but novelty and translational excitement that belong to the 2000s rather than right now.

Novelty

20

Mechanism promise

50

In-category differentiation

62

Evidence quality

60

Translational signal

42

Research bench value

75

Rationale D-cycloserine scores well on bench value as the reference glycine-site partial agonist and holds a differentiated position as the defining compound in that niche, but its 1956 vintage, well-characterized mechanism, and a clinical literature that has delivered mixed results over three decades drag novelty and translational signal into the basement. No structural cap applies; the score reflects genuine probe utility without the novelty premium.

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

NMDA receptor glycine-site partial agonist

An antibiotic with NMDA receptor partial agonist activity; investigated as an extinction-learning enhancer in exposure therapy for anxiety disorders.

Abstract

D-cycloserine ((4R)-4-amino-1,2-oxazolidin-3-one; CAS 68-41-7; molecular formula C3H6N2O2; molecular weight 102.09) is a cyclic amino acid antibiotic isolated from Streptomyces orchidaceus and approved by the FDA in 1956 for second-line tuberculosis treatment. The compound is a partial agonist at the NMDA receptor glycine site (intrinsic activity approximately 40 to 60 percent), and the partial agonism produces dose-dependent NMDA receptor modulation: at low concentrations relative to endogenous glycine/D-serine, D-cycloserine functions as a positive modulator (enhancing NMDA function); at higher concentrations it competes with the full-agonist endogenous co-agonists and behaves as a functional antagonist. The lower-dose facilitating effect underlies use as an extinction-learning enhancer in exposure therapy for phobia, PTSD, OCD, and social anxiety; clinical trials have shown modest effects with timing-dependent results (administration shortly before therapy session is critical). Plasma half-life is approximately 10 hours. Used as the canonical NMDA glycine-site partial agonist 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-377Open 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
Creatine Monohydrate

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 75 / 100

Creatine is a small organic acid your body builds from arginine, glycine, and methionine, and stores almost entirely in skeletal muscle as phosphocreatine. The phosphocreatine pool serves as a rapid phosphate donor that regenerates ATP during high-intensity exercise. Supplementation expands that pool by roughly 20 to 40 percent, which translates to consistent gains of 5 to 10 percent in strength and power output across hundreds of trials. It is the most thoroughly studied ergogenic supplement, with stronger evidence than essentially anything else in the sports nutrition aisle. Newer research has expanded into cognition, neurodegenerative disease, and depression on the theory that creatine kinase activity matters in the brain too. Loading at 20 g per day for five days saturates muscle as fast as 3 to 5 g per day over three to four weeks. 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 compoundResearch workhorse

38/100

The gold standard ergogenic reference compound, too settled to be a compelling research target

Cap applied Foundational metabolite (max 38)

Look, creatine monohydrate is genuinely excellent at what it does. The phosphocreatine-to-ATP pathway is one of the cleanest mechanisms in exercise physiology, and the evidence base is staggering: hundreds of replicated trials across decades, consistent 5 to 10 percent improvements in strength and power output, meaningful lean mass effects. If you’re doing sport science or exercise physiology, this is the reference standard. You build your protocols around it.

The problem is that none of that makes it an interesting research target right now. The mechanism was settled in the 1990s. The loading vs maintenance debate (20 g/day for 5 days versus 3-5 g/day sustained, same endpoint, different timeline) was resolved years ago. The sourcing landscape is essentially a commodity market, which is great for reliability and terrible for differentiation. When something this well-understood is this cheap and this consistent, it stops being a research frontier and becomes infrastructure.

The emerging cognitive angle is worth noting, and we dont want to dismiss it entirely. Creatine kinase activity in the CNS is real biology, and there are small trials suggesting some signal in traumatic brain injury populations and mild depression. Watanabe and colleagues published on cognitive effects in vegetarians, where baseline brain creatine is predictably lower, and the effect size there is actually interesting. But honest appraisal puts this at the “plausible mechanism, replication needed” stage. It’s not a reason to score the compound higher when the primary ergogenic story has been exhausted for three decades.

What keeps creatines bench value positive is its role as the canonical ergogenic comparator. If you’re testing anything in the energy substrate or high-intensity power output space, you’re measuring against creatine. It’s the reference standard the field uses to anchor effect sizes. That has real utility, but it’s the utility of a ruler, not a discovery.

The score here is intentional. Creatine monohydrate is one of the most effective and well-documented supplements in existence, and we mean that without irony. It scores 38 precisely because this rubric asks about research frontier value, not product quality. A compound that has been fully characterized, whose mechanism generates no new hypotheses, and whose clinical application is essentially saturated is not where a serious bench scientist should be directing attention in 2026. We’d recommend it without hesitation in a protocol stack. We wouldn’t fund a primary research program around it.

Novelty

12

Mechanism promise

18

In-category differentiation

45

Evidence quality

80

Translational signal

72

Research bench value

40

Rationale Creatine monohydrate scores well on evidence quality and translational signal but near-zero on novelty and mechanism, producing a raw calculated score of 42; the foundational metabolite hard cap brings this to 38. The compound is exhaustively characterized and functions as research infrastructure rather than a research frontier.

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

Endogenous metabolite / ergogenic supplement

A nitrogenous organic acid; the most thoroughly studied ergogenic supplement; phosphocreatine pool expansion supports rapid ATP regeneration during high-intensity exercise.

Abstract

Creatine monohydrate (N-(aminoiminomethyl)-N-methylglycine; CAS 6020-87-7; molecular formula C4H9N3O2 (anhydrous); molecular weight 131.13) is a nitrogenous organic acid biosynthesized in the liver and kidneys from arginine, glycine, and methionine and stored in skeletal muscle (95 percent of body creatine pool). Mechanism: phosphocreatine, the phosphorylated storage form, donates phosphate to ADP via creatine kinase to rapidly regenerate ATP during high-intensity exercise; supplementation expands the muscle phosphocreatine pool by approximately 20 to 40 percent, supporting longer high-intensity efforts. The most thoroughly studied ergogenic supplement, with hundreds of trials demonstrating consistent ~5 to 10 percent improvement in strength and power output and meaningful effects on lean body mass. Emerging interest in cognitive enhancement, neurodegenerative disease (creatine kinase activity in brain), and depression. The 5-day loading protocol (20 g/day) versus daily maintenance (3 to 5 g/day) produces equivalent muscle saturation with maintenance over 3 to 4 weeks. Plasma half-life is approximately 3 hours; muscle storage is the relevant pharmacokinetic measure. Used as the canonical ergogenic supplement in sport science and exercise physiology 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-394Open 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
SRT1720

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 50 / 100

SRT1720 is the structural ancestor of SRT2104, the original imidazothiazole SIRT1 activator from Sirtris (now GSK), about 1000 times more potent than resveratrol at SIRT1. Mouse studies showed lifespan extension in diet-induced obese mice and improvement in age-related metabolic and pathological markers. SRT2104 was later derived from this scaffold with better human pharmacokinetic properties. Whether SIRT1 activation is the actual mechanism for the in vivo effects has been disputed for over a decade, with some labs unable to reproduce the activation chemistry in cell-free assays. Important historically as the proof-of-concept compound for the sirtuin pharmacology program, but limited human relevance. 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

40/100

Superseded sirtuin probe with real mouse pharmacology but no translational runway

Look, SRT1720 occupies a specific and somewhat awkward position in the sirtuin literature. It was the headline compound out of Sirtris Pharmaceuticals before GlaxoSmithKline acquired the outfit in 2008, and for a few years it was the sharpest tool available for interrogating SIRT1 biology in rodents. The roughly 1000-fold potency advantage over resveratrol as a SIRT1 activator was real, the mouse lifespan extension data in diet-induced obese animals published by Milne and colleagues held up on replication, and the metabolic phenotype work was genuinely interesting. We think that body of rodent data is still the compound’s main selling point in 2025.

Here’s the thing, though. The mechanism controversy matters. In 2010, Pacholec et al. published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry arguing that SRT1720 and related compounds were activating SIRT1 only in the context of fluorescent substrate assays, not with natural peptide substrates, implying the whole activation story was a biochemical artifact. That paper hit the field hard. The 2013 Hubbard et al. work in Science partially rehabilitated the allosteric mechanism by showing activation does occur with certain natural substrates containing hydrophobic motifs adjacent to the acetyl-lysine, but the qualification is load-bearing: not all SIRT1 substrates respond equally, and the interpretation of older studies using this compound gets complicated fast. Serious investigators working in this area now have to navigate that literature carefully.

The differentiation story is equally constrained. SRT2104 was explicitly developed as the human-ready successor, with improved metabolic stability and PK that actually support clinical dosing. SRT2104 has been in human trials (inflammation, muscle atrophy, Type 2 diabetes endpoints). SRT1720 has not. That division of labor is by design, and it means SRT1720 is basically a rodent-only probe at this point. If your research program lives in mouse models and you’re specifically asking questions about SIRT1-dependent metabolic or longevity phenotypes, the established pharmacology is genuinely useful and the plasma half-life around 8 to 10 hours in rodents is well characterized. Outside of that narrow use case, you’re better served by SRT2104 for anything translational.

What we dont see here is a strong argument for prioritizing SRT1720 over other tools in sirtuin biology. EX-527 handles the inhibitor side cleanly. SRT2104 handles the human-relevant activation angle. SRT1720 sits in the middle as a historically important compound that still earns its place on the shelf for specific rodent studies, but that’s a qualified endorsement. The mechanism overhead, the translational ceiling, and the fact that theres a better successor compound all push this toward the lower tier of the library despite the real and replicated mouse data underpinning it.

Novelty

35

Mechanism promise

52

In-category differentiation

30

Evidence quality

42

Translational signal

28

Research bench value

60

Rationale SRT1720 scores as a niche probe because its primary research value is now confined to rodent SIRT1 pharmacology studies where its established mouse PK is an asset; the compound was deliberately retired as a translational candidate when Sirtris developed SRT2104 with better human pharmacokinetics, and the 2010 Pacholec et al. mechanism challenge still casts interpretive overhead on legacy studies even though the allosteric story was partially rehabilitated by Hubbard et al. in 2013.

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

Selective SIRT1 activator

An imidazothiazole SIRT1 activator; the structural lineage compound from which SRT2104 was developed.

Abstract

SRT1720 (CAS 925434-55-5; molecular formula C22H19N5OS2; molecular weight 433.55) is an imidazothiazole SIRT1 activator developed at Sirtris Pharmaceuticals as a potent (approximately 1000-fold over resveratrol) and selective sirtuin 1 activator. Mechanism is allosteric SIRT1 activation comparable to SRT2104. Mouse studies demonstrated lifespan extension in diet-induced obese mice, improved metabolic parameters, and reduced age-related pathology. The compound was the foundation for the broader Sirtris drug discovery program; SRT2104 was developed as a more drug-like successor with better human pharmacokinetics. SRT1720 is used preferentially in academic research where the established mouse pharmacology is valuable. Plasma half-life is approximately 8 to 10 hours.

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-302Open 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
Etiracetam

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 32 / 100

Etiracetam is the racemic precursor of levetiracetam. The R-enantiomer is largely inactive; the S-enantiomer is levetiracetam. Used as a research tool to study the levetiracetam mechanism. 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

16/100

The racemic parent of levetiracetam, superseded by chiral resolution and offering no research advantage over the pure active enantiomer

Look, etiracetam is essentially a solved problem in medicinal chemistry that nobody needed to return to. UCB Pharma developed it in the 1970s as a piracetam analog, investigated it briefly in early antiseizure pharmacology, then did what any competent chemist would do: resolved the racemate, identified that the S-enantiomer carries essentially all of the SV2A-mediated activity, and shelved the parent compound. That’s the whole story. The field moved on in the 1980s and hasn’t looked back.

The mechanism picture reflects this directly. SV2A-mediated pharmacology is well-characterized at this point, and levetiracetam’s binding profile has been studied extensively across multiple labs and decades. Etiracetam doesn’t add any mechanistic insight you don’t already get from levetiracetam. It just dilutes the active compound 1:1 with a biologically inert R-enantiomer at the primary target. If you want to probe SV2A, you use levetiracetam. If you want the R-enantiomer specifically, you source it separately. There’s no design where the racemate is the right tool.

On differentiation, this is about as close to “strictly worse than alternatives” as you’ll find in any research library. Levetiracetam is on formulary globally, has decades of well-characterized pharmacology, and answers the SV2A question better by construction. The differentiation score bottoms out because the compound’s own development history is the argument against it.

The evidence picture is correspondingly thin. Contemporary literature treats etiracetam almost entirely as a footnote in the levetiracetam origin story. There are no active clinical programs, no replicated modern preclinical investigations, no contemporary pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic studies in humans conducted on etiracetam as an object of interest in its own right. Citations to etiracetam in modern papers nearly always take the form: “levetiracetam was developed from its racemate” and nothing more.

We do score bench value modestly above zero because theres a narrow legitimate use case: comparative studies examining whether the R-enantiomer contributes anything to observed in vivo effects through off-target mechanisms, or analytical chemistry reference work. That’s real. But it’s a niche probe application for a very specific research question, not an active research target for a serious program. Honestly, the only reason this compound belongs in a library at all is completeness, not because any researcher should be prioritizing it in 2025.

Novelty

12

Mechanism promise

20

In-category differentiation

8

Evidence quality

18

Translational signal

12

Research bench value

30

Rationale Etiracetam scores low across nearly every axis because it is literally superseded by its own chiral resolution; levetiracetam is strictly better for any SV2A research, and the R-enantiomer is biologically inert at the primary target. The only residual bench value is as a chirality reference or comparative probe in narrow enantioselectivity studies, and even that use case is thin.

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

Pyrrolidinone racetam (parent racemate of levetiracetam)

The racemic parent compound of levetiracetam, retained primarily as a research chemical and historical reference compound.

Abstract

Etiracetam (UCB 6215; α-ethyl-2-oxo-1-pyrrolidineacetamide; CAS 33996-58-6; molecular formula C8H14N2O2; molecular weight 170.21) is the racemic parent compound of levetiracetam, originally developed at UCB Pharma in the 1970s as a piracetam analog with a 2-ethyl substitution on the acetamide. The compound is a 1:1 mixture of (R)- and (S)-enantiomers; the (S)-enantiomer (levetiracetam) carries essentially all of the SV2A-mediated antiseizure activity, while the (R)-enantiomer is biologically inactive at the same target. Etiracetam was investigated in early antiseizure pharmacology in the 1980s but was superseded by the chiral resolution to levetiracetam, which became the marketed product. The compound has no current regulatory approval and is sold as a research chemical. Pharmacokinetics and dose ranges parallel levetiracetam at 2-fold the dose to account for the inactive enantiomer. There is essentially no contemporary clinical literature on etiracetam itself; references largely cite it as the parent of levetiracetam.

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-035Open 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
Picamilon

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 50 / 100

Picamilon is a Russian-developed conjugate of niacin (vitamin B3) and GABA. The niacin portion carries GABA across the blood-brain barrier. Used in Russia for circulation and anxiety. 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

28/100

Soviet-era niacin-GABA prodrug with clever BBB concept but thin modern evidence and limited research utility

Look, the core idea behind picamilon was actually clever for 1975. GABA doesn’t cross the blood-brain barrier on its own, so Soviet pharmacologists conjugated it to niacin, which does. Central hydrolysis was supposed to release both components and produce a combined anxiolytic-plus-vasodilatory effect. As a prodrug strategy, its fine. The problem is that we’ve known exactly how this works for decades, the components are completely mundane, and the literature supporting it is almost entirely Soviet-era Russian research that isn’t held to the methodological standards we’d want to see today.

On novelty, there’s nothing to argue about. The compound is fifty years old, approved in Russia for cerebrovascular insufficiency and anxiety, and the mechanism has been understood since its original synthesis. The niacin vasodilation story is textbook pharmacology; the GABA-ergic anxiolysis is equally unremarkable. What the conjugation adds is BBB penetrance, which is a real pharmacological contribution, but that contribution was made a long time ago and doesn’t translate into research excitement now.

The evidence situation is genuinely problematic. The clinical literature lives almost exclusively in Soviet and Russian journals from the 1970s through 1990s, with the methodological limitations that implies. There’s no meaningful Western replication. Russia’s national approval reflects a different regulatory context and era. The FDA has explicitly issued warnings against picamilon’s sale as a dietary supplement in the United States, citing that it doesn’t meet the legal definition of a dietary ingredient. That’s not a disqualifier for a research-use compound, but it does signal how regulators are reading the evidence base.

From a bench utility perspective, we struggle to identify what question picamilon lets you answer that you couldn’t answer better with other tools. For central GABA biology, phenibut and the benzodiazepine pharmacology toolbox are more characterized. For cerebrovascular work, there are better vasodilatory probes. For anxiolysis research, the GABA-A positive allosteric modulator literature is far more sophisticated. Picamilon sits at the intersection of several areas without being the best tool in any of them.

Honestly, the compound’s most interesting research angle might be as a case study in Soviet psychopharmacology and the BBB-penetrant prodrug design philosophy. That’s historically interesting but it’s not going to move a modern research program. We think the compound is fine as a historical artifact and the original prodrug concept still has teaching value, but as an object of new bench-scale investigation, there are better places to put time and resources in 2025.

Novelty

22

Mechanism promise

32

In-category differentiation

28

Evidence quality

30

Translational signal

33

Research bench value

22

Rationale Picamilon scores low primarily because both the novelty and the bench utility are exhausted: the BBB-penetrant GABA prodrug concept was genuinely clever in the 1970s but the underlying biology is now utterly mundane, and the evidence base is almost entirely Soviet-era Russian literature that doesn’t meet modern methodological standards. The Russian national approval gives it minimal translational credit, but there’s essentially no Western replication and better probes exist for every niche this compound occupies.

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

Niacin-GABA conjugate

A Soviet-developed niacin-GABA conjugate (N-nicotinoyl-GABA) that crosses the blood-brain barrier and dissociates centrally to release both components.

Abstract

Picamilon (Pikamilon; N-nicotinoyl-GABA; CAS 34562-97-5; molecular formula C10H12N2O3; molecular weight 208.21) is a conjugate of niacin (nicotinic acid) and GABA developed in the Soviet Union in the 1970s. The niacin moiety provides blood-brain barrier permeability that GABA lacks; central hydrolysis releases both components. Niacin produces vasodilation and the GABA produces anxiolytic and mild sedative effects. The combination is approved in Russia for cerebrovascular insufficiency, anxiety, and migraine prophylaxis. Pharmacokinetics: rapid oral absorption; central hydrolysis to niacin and GABA; the niacin component is hepatically conjugated and excreted while GABA is metabolized through normal GABA pathways. Doses are 50 to 300 mg per day in divided administrations. The compound is sold as a research chemical/supplement in the United States though FDA has issued warnings against its sale 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-068Open 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
hGH Fragment 176-191

Plain-language summaryIntrigue 50 / 100

HGH Fragment 176-191 is the natural C-terminal fragment of human growth hormone (the parent peptide of AOD-9604). It is hypothesized to drive selective fat loss without affecting blood sugar or causing the systemic effects of full growth hormone. 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

53/100

The canonical GH axis reference standard, evidence-rich but offering minimal research novelty in 2026

Look, somatropin is one of the most thoroughly characterized protein drugs ever made. Approved since 1987, studied in tens of thousands of patients across pediatric GHD, Turner syndrome, Prader-Willi, HIV wasting, short bowel syndrome, and adult GHD. The evidence base here is genuinely massive. If you need a clean, well-replicated signal that something is biologically real and clinically durable, somatropin delivers it. Thats not in dispute.

The problem, from a research library standpoint, is that the compound is almost completely understood. Receptor dimerization at GHR, JAK2 activation, STAT5 phosphorylation, hepatic IGF-1 synthesis, IGFBP-3 ternary complex assembly. This is the kind of biology you teach in first-year endocrinology. The mechanism is not novel, the axis is not under-explored, and the pharmacology is saturated. What we like about HGH is precisely the thing that makes it a poor research target: it is entirely legible. You already know what it does.

We also have to be honest about where the interesting work lives right now. Investigators pushing GH axis biology are mostly working on GHRH analogs (tesamorelin, CJC-1295), ghrelin-mimetic GHRPs (ipamorelin, hexarelin), small-molecule secretagogues like MK-677, or long-acting somatropin conjugates like somapacitan and lonapegsomatropin. The secretagogue literature is livelier than direct GH replacement, partly because preserving pulsatility matters and partly because the regulatory and sourcing landscape for secretagogues is more tractable at bench scale. Full-length recombinant GH is also expensive, cold-chain-dependent, and immunogenic in some preparations. These arent disqualifying issues, but they complicate the research workflow relative to a clean synthetic peptide.

Where somatropin still earns real points is bench utility and translational weight. If you’re doing mechanistic work on the GH/IGF-1 axis, it remains the gold standard reference. Any study that needs to compare a secretagogue’s IGF-1 response against direct GH replacement needs somatropin. The approvals also mean the pharmacokinetic and safety dataset is irreplaceable for comparative work. We don’t want to understate that. But as a primary research target, a compound this well-characterized really does belong in a support role rather than at the frontier. The field moved on. The interesting questions about GH biology now orbit around tissue selectivity, pulsatility engineering, and combinations with GLP-1 axis agents. Somatropin is the baseline you measure from, not the thing you’re running toward.

Novelty

18

Mechanism promise

32

In-category differentiation

58

Evidence quality

85

Translational signal

82

Research bench value

65

Rationale Somatropin scores very high on evidence quality and translational signal because it IS the approved drug with decades of phase 3 data, but novelty and mechanism scores drag the composite down hard; the GH/IGF-1/JAK2-STAT5 axis is textbook endocrinology, and the interesting frontier work has migrated to secretagogues, long-acting analogs, and downstream IGF-1 axis modulators rather than exogenous full-length GH replacement itself.

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

C-terminal hGH fragment

The unmodified C-terminal fragment of hGH (residues 176-191) sold as a research chemical for lipolytic applications.

Abstract

hGH Fragment 176-191 is the unmodified C-terminal 16-residue sequence of human growth hormone (Tyr-Leu-Arg-Ile-Val-Gln-Cys-Arg-Ser-Val-Glu-Gly-Ser-Cys-Gly-Phe with a disulfide bond). The compound is a precursor to AOD-9604 (which adds a tyrosine N-terminal extension) and is sold as a research chemical with similar lipolytic claims. The mechanistic and clinical evidence base is essentially the same as for AOD-9604. The compound is not approved by any regulatory authority. Research-grade vendor doses are typically 250 to 500 micrograms subcutaneously daily.

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-086Open 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 … 61 62 63 64 65 … 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.