Scope of this source list

The PXL01 query above is retained so its limits are visible. A BPC-157 tendon experiment cannot establish results for PXL01, nerve repair, adhesion prevention or a Promore Pharma HA formulation. No clinical conclusion about that separate subject follows from this bibliography.

For the topics covered here, each description states who produced the source, when it appeared and what kind of evidence it contributes. Original studies, reviews and agency records answer different questions. The links preserve the source addresses used throughout the site.

BPC-157 experiments and human reports

Staresinic and colleagues, 2003

The rat Achilles-tendon experiment measured strength, movement and tissue organization after a complete tendon cut. It also included work with tendon cells. It is an animal and laboratory study, not a human recovery trial.

DOI: 10.1016/s0736-0266(03)00110-4

Hsieh and colleagues, 2017

The study of blood-vessel signaling examined VEGFR2-related activity in cells and animal models. It supplies a possible biological explanation for repair findings, while leaving the clinical benefit in people unresolved.

DOI: 10.1007/s00109-016-1488-y

McGuire and colleagues, 2025

This narrative review of musculoskeletal BPC-157 research brings together animal work and a small human record. It supports the distinction between a large preclinical literature and limited clinical evidence, rather than establishing a treatment.

DOI: 10.1007/s12178-025-09990-7

Lee and Burgess, 2025

The intravenous pilot involving two adults reported short-term safety observations and blood markers. Its size and observation period cannot establish uncommon risks or long-term safety. It was not a test of tendon healing.

Source address: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40131143/

GHK and GHK-Cu studies

Pickart, Vasquez-Soltero and Margolina, 2015

This review of GHK in skin biology discusses collagen, tissue maintenance and findings across several study settings. It supplies context for the cell findings; a broad review does not make every discussed effect an established human benefit.

DOI: 10.1155/2015/648108

Mortazavi, Mohammadi Vadoud and Moghimi, 2025

The review of topical GHK considers skin delivery, cosmetic findings and the shortage of clinical trials. It is used here to keep the promise of the laboratory work alongside the limitations of the human evidence.

DOI: 10.34172/bi.30071

Hostynek, Dreher and Maibach, 2011

This experiment with removed human skin measured copper penetration through different skin layers. It did not establish a clinical benefit, and measuring copper does not by itself track intact GHK-Cu in a living person.

DOI: 10.1007/s00011-010-0238-9

Lee and colleagues, 2016

The hair study using GHK and another ingredient tested a combination containing free GHK. It cannot isolate a GHK effect or establish a result for GHK-Cu alone.

DOI: 10.5021/ad.2016.28.4.438

Goldstein and colleagues, 2012

This review of full-length thymosin beta-4 describes basic biology and potential applications. It is relevant to the rationale behind TB-500 discussions, but the full protein and the short fragment are different substances.

DOI: 10.1517/14712598.2012.634793

Mendias and Awan, 2026

The review of peptide therapies for musculoskeletal conditions places unapproved peptides in a wider clinical and safety context. It does not establish the effectiveness or safety of GLOW or Wolverine as combinations.

DOI: 10.1007/s40279-026-02437-0

FDA records

The FDA safety-risk page, current as of April 22, 2026, is the source for the nominated-but-withdrawn entries and their retained safety concerns. It gives no individual withdrawal dates.

The 503A category document updated May 14, 2026 distinguishes non-injectable GHK-Cu from the injectable entry. Category 1 evaluation under an interim policy is not FDA approval. These documents describe a regulatory record, not a personal treatment decision.