MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
TURBOVITAL HYGENE BIOPHARMA Long R3 IGF-1
- Thread starter ProfessorX
- Start date
Last edited:
Marcus
New Member
Jesus this is way beyond me. @ChestRockwell might be able to to shed light as well, looks like mands may be a bit busy.
What did u pay for this?
What did u pay for this?
ChestRockwell
Well-known Member
This quick and simple answer is that synthesized IGF may be similar to endogenous IGF molecules, however they will likely not be able to elicit bioactivity due to the lack of recombinant technology.
This leads to a version of synthetic IGF-1 without the correct disulfide bonds that are required for activity at the receptor's extracellular domain.
This leads to a version of synthetic IGF-1 without the correct disulfide bonds that are required for activity at the receptor's extracellular domain.
janoshik
Subscriber
Thank you for your educated insight! Much appreciated!
1. An answer to what? A question that was not even implied?
2. Please, answer me how exactly are you going to *synthetize* IGF-1 LR3 without recombinant technology? Thank you in advance for enlightening me.
3. Please, how exactly is bioactivity is achievable only by recombinant technology? I'd love to be enlightened - please, feel free to use GHRP-2 as an example. Right after you use that one as an example feel free to write an short essay about exclusivity of disulphide bonds to recombinant technology. I'll make sure to submit it to Nature.
Looking forward to learning a lot of new info!
janoshik
Subscriber
@ProfessorX I think you will find out AAA is indeed as useless for this kind of analyses as I had claimed it to be over a half a year ago.
The spread of the results and massive positive deviation from claimed content are alarming by itself enough.
And I think anybody well versed in this will confirm that using absorbance at 280 might work just as well as it might not.
Only way to test long peptides / proteins like these quantitatively is to own a proper standard.
The spread of the results and massive positive deviation from claimed content are alarming by itself enough.
And I think anybody well versed in this will confirm that using absorbance at 280 might work just as well as it might not.
Only way to test long peptides / proteins like these quantitatively is to own a proper standard.
janoshik
Subscriber
Also, if disulphide bonds (or rather tertiary structure) and their intactness, necessary for proper binding to receptor, are of concern, then AAA is, again, absolutely useless.
Tertiary structure tends to get fucked with bad storage, bad lyophilisation or bad manufacturing practice in general. Not quite very well detectable without a proper HPLC with a working STANDARD.
Tertiary structure tends to get fucked with bad storage, bad lyophilisation or bad manufacturing practice in general. Not quite very well detectable without a proper HPLC with a working STANDARD.
mercury
New Member
what about the proper equipment ?
reversed-phase HPLC is widely used because of its ability to separate proteins of nearly identical structure.
but it is actually hard to find a lab with proper setup to do this.
janoshik
Subscriber
RP-HPLC, ion-exchange and SEC-HPLC are the methods of choice for proteins.
RP-HPLC is the best to separate the most closely related proteins - like you have mentioned.
SEC and IonEx might not be be able to distinguish between only slighly changed proteins - ie switched disulphide bonds, or single amino acid difference. I'm sure I've read an application note of RP-HPLC exactly for determining switched disulphide bonds for IGF-1.
Thanks Jano
The lab is clearly stating that this method (AAA) is for quantifying pure proteins and peptides and NOT formulated proteins (pharmaceutical Recombinant Human Growth hormone)
The best method would be: (According to the Lab)
* Determine quantity present in grams via HPLC-MS response of intact protein relative to calibration curve of Sigma somatropin standard Cat. no. S0947000. Includes determination of intact mass of provided sample.
* HPLC-MS of known quantity Sigma Cat. no. S0947000 - somatropin reference standard to generate 5-point calibration curve
I believe this would answer the question to the Serostim mg/mL test result (underdosed) using AAA
It's just not accurate.....this is according to this Accredited Lab specializing in protein analysis
Maybe other testing labs are purifying the sample first? I dunno....but AAA doesn't seem to be accurate when testing "formulated" samples
ALSO,
According to SwissProt: (IGF1 Analogs)
IGF1 - Molecular Weight 7649
IGF1 Long R3 - Molecular Weight 9111
IGF1 DES - Molecular Weight 7365
Studies and Prescriptions for human use are using IGF1 (MW 7649) and not the analogs (Des / Long R3) (MW 7365 - MW9111)
https://www.akronbiotech.com/product/igf-1-insulin-like-growth-factor-1-recombinant-human/
https://vicrin.com/ (VICRIN)
Increlex: The Only FDA-approved Treatment Used for Severe Primary IGFD, a Growth Disorder
Mecasermin: Indications, Side Effects, Warnings - Drugs.com
Using IGF1-LR3 / IGF1-DES.......waste of time and $$ ?
Last edited:
janoshik
Subscriber
HPLC-MS is inferior to HPLC-UV, in regards to quantitation, unless we are talking about miniscule quantities. Other than that, that's the way I do it.
Even they describe it as ideal and AAA as subpar - makes you think, right?
AAA is useless without purification beforehands.
And unnecessary when using a standard (less precise as well).
I recently did a test of IGF-LR3 for a vendor and he made the results public in SST just now -
I used legitimate reference standard for the testing and that's the way it should be done, took me ages to perfect the method though, so I could separate it perfectly.
Even they describe it as ideal and AAA as subpar - makes you think, right?
AAA is useless without purification beforehands.
And unnecessary when using a standard (less precise as well).
I recently did a test of IGF-LR3 for a vendor and he made the results public in SST just now -
I used legitimate reference standard for the testing and that's the way it should be done, took me ages to perfect the method though, so I could separate it perfectly.
Sorry.....the labs exact words were "a more accurate" testing method and not "best" 
Another member posted this link:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/pr3003326?mobileUi=0
It states quantification (AAA) of pure proteins and peptides which confirms what my lab is stating about formulation proteins
Also, I believe the cost refelects the results (a simples AAA test is apprx $250)
These links also have some great info on different testing methods in regards to the sample being tested:
http://www.alphalyse.com/fast-protein-analysis-services/amino-acid-analysis/protein-quantification-total-content/
http://www.alphalyse.com/biopharmaceuticals/protein-quantification/amino-acid-analysis/ (Triplicate Amino Acid Assay - accurate quantification)
Quantification of host cell proteins of concern by MRM LC-MS/MS - Alphalyse
I'm afraid the previous AAA testing results are flawed
The Serostim result confirms it in my opinion
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/pr3003326?mobileUi=0
It states quantification (AAA) of pure proteins and peptides which confirms what my lab is stating about formulation proteins
Also, I believe the cost refelects the results (a simples AAA test is apprx $250)
These links also have some great info on different testing methods in regards to the sample being tested:
http://www.alphalyse.com/fast-protein-analysis-services/amino-acid-analysis/protein-quantification-total-content/
http://www.alphalyse.com/biopharmaceuticals/protein-quantification/amino-acid-analysis/ (Triplicate Amino Acid Assay - accurate quantification)
Quantification of host cell proteins of concern by MRM LC-MS/MS - Alphalyse
I'm afraid the previous AAA testing results are flawed
The Serostim result confirms it in my opinion
Not trying to be mean so please don't take it as such, but every time you post on this subject, your replies don't make any sense at all. Your understanding of this is completely out of whack or just blinded by your hate of generics and the thought process of they are inferior. They are only inferior due to lack of quality control not technology or some other whacked out theory about one version being synthetic etc. they are all synthetic and all are synthesized using recombinant tech as that's the only way to do so.
Please stop spreading false info. Please.
J-Smooth
New Member
Real igf-1 is super super $$$$$
Only 2 ways to get it. YouTube the shit out of it from what I found only 2 lagit igf-1 in us to get from everywhere else is bunk. And I'm talking big bug money for real IGF-1 unless you have a child who needs it and can some how play the system. It's not happening not 100% real. Another synthetic phony. I'm not saying this with zero research. I've spent along with others countless times to find igf-1. Even a buddy had Hep-c tried to get it but he did get other goodies. Sorry but there is only 2 company's that make igf-1 brother pharmacy grade. PM me for those company's names
Only 2 ways to get it. YouTube the shit out of it from what I found only 2 lagit igf-1 in us to get from everywhere else is bunk. And I'm talking big bug money for real IGF-1 unless you have a child who needs it and can some how play the system. It's not happening not 100% real. Another synthetic phony. I'm not saying this with zero research. I've spent along with others countless times to find igf-1. Even a buddy had Hep-c tried to get it but he did get other goodies. Sorry but there is only 2 company's that make igf-1 brother pharmacy grade. PM me for those company's names
This might help and maybe Jano can add some info
Yea, some PEPs are completely bunk.....but what's being sold are Analogs of IGF1
EXAMPLE of Real IGF1:
(Link)
https://vicrin.com/ (VICRIN)
This is IGF1 and not analogs LR3 or DES
Yea, some PEPs are completely bunk.....but what's being sold are Analogs of IGF1
EXAMPLE of Real IGF1:
(Link)
https://vicrin.com/ (VICRIN)
This is IGF1 and not analogs LR3 or DES
Marcus
New Member
Hey show, you were gonna start IGF-LR3, right? How do you like it?
janoshik
Subscriber
I disagree.
Exactly, what is being sold are not pharmacy acquired peptides.
Molecular mass is useful if you don't have a standard - using TOF / Orbitrap mass spectrometer will give you exact mass of the molecule and due to them being high resolution techniques, the amounts of isotopes (or rather molecular mass variance) can allow you to get atomic composition of the molecule.
However is it capable of providing information about switched amino acids or disrupted sulphide bonds? No, it cannot.
With orthogonal HPLC and standard the identification is more reliable than with use of mass spectrometer, I dare to say. High resolution and not very steep gradients with C4 - C8 columns are awesome.
What is less awesome is the time it takes to perfect such a method, which can take weeks... In that regard using mass spec for identification is a better option, but subpar.
I only took it twice, both after training. Right now I am dieting extreme on a protein sparing modified fast so zero carbs and as little fat as possible except a bunch of fish and krill oil and it was just making my sugar drop too much. Gonna save it til after my vacation in July. First time I haven't been able to handle a product lol.
