An evaluation of intravenous, subcutaneous, and in vitro activity of new agmatine analogs of growth hormone-releasing hormone hGH-RH (1-29)NH2.
Kovacs. M M; Gulyas. J J; Bajusz. S S; Schally. A V AV
Key Findings
- Agmatine‑modified GH‑RH analogs are 30‑74 × more potent than native GH‑RH (sermorelin) when given subcutaneously in rats
- Native GH‑RH (sermorelin) is about 50 × more active intravenously than subcutaneously, indicating poor skin absorption
- In vitro pituitary tests mirror the intravenous potency, confirming that route of administration drives the differences
Practical Outcomes
- If you’re using sermorelin subcutaneously, expect a weak GH response and may need much higher doses or IV delivery for meaningful effects. The experimental analogs aren’t commercially available, so the main takeaway is to focus on administration route rather than expecting big gains from standard sermorelin alone.
Summary
The study shows that the standard growth‑hormone‑releasing peptide (sermorelin) works much better when given intravenously than under the skin, while several experimental agmatine‑modified versions are dramatically stronger when injected subcutaneously. This means the usual sub‑Q sermorelin shots many biohackers use are likely far less effective than expected, and the big gains seen with the new analogs are due to better skin absorption, not a different species response.
Abstract
The effects of new Agmatine (Agm) analogs of human growth hormone-releasing hormone (GH-RH) were compared to GH-RH (1-29)NH2 and to (D-Ala2)GH-RH(1-29)NH2 after intravenous (IV) and subcutaneous (SC) administration to pentobarbital-anesthetised male rats and in vitro using superfused rat pituitary cell system. After IV administration, the analogs: (D-MeAla2,Nle27)GH-RH(1-28)Agm(JG-75), (desamino-Tyr1,D-Ala2,Nle27)GH-RH(1-28)Agm(JG-77), (D-Ala2,Nle27)GH-RH(1-28)Agm(JG-73) and (D-Ala2)GH-RH(1-29)NH2 showed a potency 2.6-3.9 times greater than GH-RH(1-29)NH2 at 5 min and 1.6-2.7 times higher at 15 min. After SC administration these analogs were 30-74 times more potent than GH-RH(1-29)NH2. The ratio between the IV and SC GH-releasing activity of the analogs ranged from 2 to 5, while GH-RH(1-29)NH2 was about 50 times more active IV than SC. This indicates that 20-50% of the analogs can be absorbed from SC tissues, but only 2% of GH-RH(1-29)NH2. The in vitro activity of the agmatine analogs on GH release closely paralleled their IV potency and was 2.8-3.9 times greater than that of GH-RH(1-29)NH2. No significant difference in potency was found between (D-Ala2)GH-RH(1-29)NH2 and JG-75 after IV administration and in vitro, although JG-75 contained only 28 amino acids. We conclude that the reason for the large discrepancies between the previously reported activities of (D-Ala2)GH-RH(1-29)NH2 was simply due to the different ways of administration of this analog, SC vs IV, and not to species specificity. The replacement of Arg29 by Agmatine in (D-Ala2,Nle27)GH-RH(1-29)NH2 causes a 3 fold increase in SC potency, but the replacement of D-Ala2 with D-MeAla2 reduces the SC, but not the IV and in vitro activity in half.
Study Information
pubmed
1988
10.1016/0024-3205(88)90621-2
13
16