Sermorelin Research
Sermorelin held two FDA approvals, both withdrawn in 2009. What the primary regulatory record and the small human trial base actually establish.
PEG-MGF research is defined by what is missing from it. A PubMed search for the compound returns a single record, and that record is a narrative review rather than primary research [1][8]. No primary study of the pegylated construct is retrievable from PubMed, and no clinical trial of it is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov [8].
PEG-MGF is a PEGylated synthetic construct nominally based on the C-terminal E-domain peptide of IGF-1Ec, the IGF-1 splice variant usually called mechano growth factor [1].
It is not a single defined chemical entity, because PEG chain length, PEG mass, attachment chemistry and attachment site are neither standardized across suppliers nor disclosed. The one review covering the compound does not treat it as a clinically characterized drug entity [1].
No CAS number is declared for PEG-MGF. PubChem returns no compound record for either "PEG-MGF" or "mechano growth factor" [8]. PubChem holds only two supplier-deposited substance records, both carrying autogenerated placeholder structures rather than deposited ones [8]. No registered CAS number for the compound could be located [8]. Any CAS number shown for it elsewhere is either fabricated or belongs to a different substance, such as unpegylated MGF or IGF-1.
FDA has separately noted that compounded PEG-MGF drugs "may have complexities with regard to peptide-related impurities and API characterization" [6].
The sole peer-reviewed source covering PEG-MGF is a 2026 narrative review of growth hormone axis peptides [1]. Its authors state it is not a systematic review [1].
That review assigns PEG-MGF to its lowest evidence tier, tier D. Tier D is defined as compounds with no peer-reviewed human studies at all, supported only by preclinical extrapolation and grey-literature user narratives [1].
Its summary table records the following for PEG-MGF [1]:
Longer half-life is a standard commercial rationale for pegylation. That claimed property has not been measured in any published study of PEG-MGF [1][8].
The proliferative concern in that safety entry is theoretical, and the review rests it on parent cancer biology [1]. IGF-1Ec transcript is preferentially expressed in cancerous tissue of the human prostate (human tissue samples) [11]. The MGF E-peptide showed autonomous growth factor activity in prostate cancer cells (in vitro) [11]. Both findings concern the unpegylated parent, and neither is a clinical outcome study [11].
The review states that claims PEG-MGF accelerates recovery or improves body composition in humans remain unproven [1]. It adds that robust randomized controlled trials in human populations are lacking [1].
The review's only figures on how PEG-MGF is used trace to bodybuilding forums and a supplement retailer's blog post [1]. Those figures have no clinical origin, and no others exist in the peer-reviewed record [1][8].
The review also addresses forum reports of local-only action and of an absence of systemic adverse effects [1]. It states that such reports are anecdotal [1]. Anecdotal reports are not a substitute for controlled safety or efficacy data.
The review states that pegylation alters pharmacokinetics and tissue exposure [1]. Effects seen with native IGF-1Ec or isolated E-domain peptides therefore cannot be assumed to apply to PEG-conjugated constructs [1]. The mechanistic literature cited in support of PEG-MGF is largely IGF-1Ec and MGF biology and synthetic E-domain constructs, and all of that work is preclinical [1].
The parent record is itself contested. Scientists at two pharmaceutical companies attempted to reproduce the reported effects of the MGF E-domain peptide and failed in every model tested (in vitro) [2]. Concentrations up to 500 ng/mL did not increase proliferation of C2C12 cells or primary human myoblasts, and did not activate p-ERK in cardiac myocytes (in vitro) [2]. Those failures held for the native peptide and for a stabilized MGF peptide (in vitro) [2]. Mature IGF-1 and full-length IGF-1Eb responded robustly in the same experiments, so the assays were working (in vitro) [2]. The authors concluded that their results call into question whether MGF has a physiological role at all [2]. Both companies had a commercial incentive running toward a positive result, which makes the negative finding harder to dismiss. One counter-argument is that synthetic peptide quality and the exact sequence used could explain the discrepancy.
The parent record also holds results pointing the other way. In human muscle progenitor cells the MGF E-peptide increased proliferative lifespan and delayed senescence, in cells from neonatal and young adult donors (in vitro) [12]. A separate hypertrophy and fusion effect was reported at every age tested, and that study's overall conclusion was positive (in vitro) [12]. That study and the replication failure used overlapping cell types and reached opposite conclusions [2][12]. A third study found an opposite-direction effect in bone, inhibiting osteoblast differentiation and mineralization (in vitro) [13].
A separate review notes that no analogous peptide product of the IGF1 gene has been isolated from cultured cells, conditioned medium, animal tissues or biological fluids [3]. Absence of isolation is not proof of non-existence.
The one peer-reviewed paper covering PEG-MGF cites the parent literature selectively. Its reference list omits the failed replication [2], the never-isolated finding [3] and the receptor-independence study [4].
One paper in the parent MGF literature has been retracted, on mechano growth factor in intervertebral disc cells [10]. It is not a PEG-MGF paper and not a muscle paper. The thin preclinical parent base therefore contains at least one withdrawn paper.
The review's summary table assigns PEG-MGF IGF-1 receptor tyrosine kinase signaling and satellite cell proliferation [1].
Receptor work on the unpegylated parent points the other way. In one study the E peptide's proliferative effect survived an anti-IGF-1-receptor neutralizing antibody, and Akt was not phosphorylated (in vitro) [4]. An earlier study using an IGF-1 receptor blocking antibody reached the same conclusion (in vitro) [5]. Both are negative findings, and the receptor the E peptide acts through has not been identified.
No receptor study of the pegylated construct is retrievable from PubMed [8]. The mechanism assigned to PEG-MGF is therefore inherited from a parent whose own receptor data contradict it.
No marketing application or approved labeling for PEG-MGF is retrievable from Drugs@FDA or openFDA [8]. Drugs@FDA does list drugs that were approved and later discontinued, so the absence reflects the record rather than the search [8].
PEG-MGF was nominated as a bulk drug substance for compounding under section 503A and placed in category 2 [7]. On 15 April 2026 FDA announced that PEG-MGF would be removed from category 2 after seven calendar days, because the nomination was withdrawn by the nominator [7]. Withdrawal was the nominator's act, not an FDA decision on the merits. Removal from category 2 does not make a substance eligible for compounding under section 503A.
FDA has published what it does not know about PEG-MGF. The agency states it "has not identified any human exposure data on drug products containing PEG-MGF administered via any route of administration" [6]. It adds that it "lacks important information regarding any safety issues raised by PEG-MGF, including whether it would cause harm if administered to humans" [6]. The same page identifies a potential hazard, stating that compounded PEG-MGF drugs "may pose significant risk for immunogenicity for certain routes of administration" [6].
FDA has stated it intends to consult the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee before the end of February 2027 regarding potential inclusion of PEG-MGF on the 503A bulks list [7]. That is a deadline for the consultation, not a scheduled meeting date [7].
Mechano growth factors are named in Section S2 of the 2026 WADA Prohibited List, a section prohibited at all times, in and out of competition [9]. That entry names the class, not any individual product, so pegylation confers no exemption [9].
There is almost no PEG-MGF research. One narrative review covers the compound, places it in its lowest evidence tier, and warns against importing the parent molecule's preclinical findings [1]. The review's safety entry for PEG-MGF pairs no human data with a theoretical proliferative concern drawn from parent cancer biology [1]. An independent attempt to reproduce the parent findings failed in every model tested (in vitro) [2]. A separate group reported positive effects of the same parent peptide in human muscle progenitor cells (in vitro) [12]. FDA has said it cannot tell whether the substance would cause harm in people [6].
Does PEG-MGF have a CAS number? The product declares no CAS number, and PubChem returns no compound record for "PEG-MGF" or "mechano growth factor" [8]. PubChem holds only two supplier-deposited substance records, both carrying autogenerated placeholder structures [8].
Has PEG-MGF been studied in humans? The one review covering it places PEG-MGF in a tier defined by having no peer-reviewed human studies at all [1]. Its table records no peer-reviewed human efficacy or safety data [1]. No clinical trial of PEG-MGF is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov [8], and FDA has identified no human exposure data by any route [6].
Does the muscle-repair research on MGF apply to PEG-MGF? The review states that pegylation alters pharmacokinetics and tissue exposure [1]. Effects seen with native IGF-1Ec or isolated E-domain peptides cannot be assumed to apply to PEG-conjugated constructs [1]. The parent findings are also preclinical [1], and an independent attempt to reproduce them failed in every model tested (in vitro) [2]. A separate study reported positive effects of the parent peptide in human muscle progenitor cells (in vitro) [12].
What is PEG-MGF's regulatory status? Drugs@FDA and openFDA return no marketing application and no approved labeling for it [8]. Its 503A compounding nomination was withdrawn by the nominator, and FDA announced removal from category 2 on 15 April 2026, effective seven calendar days later [7]. Removal from category 2 does not make a substance eligible for compounding under section 503A. FDA has stated it intends to consult the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee before the end of February 2027 about potential inclusion on the 503A bulks list [7].
PEG-MGF is supplied for laboratory research use only. Not for human consumption.
Available for research
Lab-tested, batch-specific COA published, ships from US stock.
Chemistry & Handling
Molecular identity, reconstitution, storage, stability, and purity verification.
Certificate of Analysis
Batch PP/PEG/062026 · 99.692% purity by HPLC · certified Aug 2026
Safety Data Sheet
16-section GHS format · hazard identification, handling, storage and disposal
References
Sermorelin held two FDA approvals, both withdrawn in 2009. What the primary regulatory record and the small human trial base actually establish.
An evidence-led review of tesamorelin research: what its approval covers and what it does not, and what the human trials actually found.
An evidence-led review of MGF research: what the splice variant is, its contested receptor and laboratory record, and the state of the human evidence.
An evidence-led review of IGF-1 LR3 research: weaker binding at the same receptor, what has been measured, and why the half-life claim runs backwards.
An evidence-led review of IGF-1 DES research: the same receptor as IGF-1 but different binding-protein behaviour, what has been measured, and in what.
An evidence-led review of HGH Fragment 176-191 research: which molecule the work was actually done on, the animal findings, and the human evidence.