Skip to content

Cosmetic Peptide Matrix

A comprehensive side-by-side comparison of all five major cosmetic peptides covered in the AMP Peptide Research Database: GHK-Cu, Matrixyl, Argireline, Matrixyl 3000, and SNAP-8.


Overview

Feature GHK-Cu Matrixyl Argireline Matrixyl 3000 SNAP-8
INCI Name Copper Tripeptide-1 Palmitoyl Pentapeptide-4 Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 Palmitoyl Tripeptide-1 + Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-7 Acetyl Octapeptide-3
Class Copper-binding signal peptide Matrikine (signal peptide) Neuromodulatory peptide Dual matrikine Neuromodulatory peptide
Primary Function Dermal remodeling, collagen synthesis Collagen production Wrinkle reduction research (muscle relaxation) Collagen + anti-inflammatory Advanced wrinkle reduction
Mechanism Copper delivery + TGF-β signaling Procollagen fragment mimic SNARE complex inhibition Matrikine + IL-6 suppression Enhanced SNARE inhibition
Year Introduced ~1980s ~2000 ~2002 ~2007 ~2009
Developer Pickart (natural) Sederma Lipotec Sederma/Ashland Lipotec

Chemical Profile Comparison

Property GHK-Cu Matrixyl Argireline Matrixyl 3000 (T1 + T7) SNAP-8
CAS Number 89030-95-5 214047-00-4 616204-22-9 147732-56-7 / 221227-05-0 868802-72-6
Sequence GHK Pal-KTTKS Ac-EEMQRR-NH₂ Pal-GHK + Pal-GQPR Ac-EEMQRRAD-NH₂
Sequence Length 3 5 6 3 + 4 8
Molecular Weight (Da) 466.4 (complex) 802.1 888.5 673.8 + 520.7 1074.3
logP −2.5 3.8 −1.7 4.0 / 3.8 −1.9
Molecular Formula C₁₄H₂₄N₆O₄·Cu C₃₉H₇₅N₇O₁₀ C₃₄H₆₀N₁₄O₁₂S C₃₀H₅₃N₇O₆ + C₃₀H₅₂N₈O₇ C₄₃H₇₃N₁₅O₁₆S
Purity (HPLC) ≥ 98% ≥ 98% ≥ 98% ≥ 95% ≥ 98%
Lipophilic Modification None (copper coordination) Palmitoylated (C16) N-acetyl + C-amide Palmitoylated (C16) N-acetyl + C-amide

Mechanism Comparison

Mechanism GHK-Cu Matrixyl Argireline Matrixyl 3000 SNAP-8
Collagen Synthesis ✓ Strong (TGF-β) ✓ Strong (matrikine) ✓ Strong (dual matrikine)
Copper Delivery ✓ Direct ✗ (Pal-GHK only)
Antioxidant ✓ Direct + indirect
Anti-Inflammatory ✓ (NF-κB) ✓ Strong (IL-6)
SNARE Inhibition ✓ Moderate ✓ Strong
Muscle Relaxation ✓ 30–45% ✓ 30–50%
Dermal Remodeling ✓ Strong
ECM Remodeling ✓ (GAGs, decorin) ✓ (elastin, fibronectin) ✓ (comprehensive)

Research Evidence Comparison

In Vitro Efficacy

Endpoint GHK-Cu Matrixyl Argireline Matrixyl 3000 SNAP-8
Collagen I Increase 70% (1 µM) 117% (10 µM) N/A 180% (blend) N/A
Collagen III Increase 65% 86% N/A 150% N/A
Elastin Increase 50% 140% N/A 100% N/A
SNARE Inhibition (IC50) N/A N/A ~10 µM N/A ~2 µM
Muscle Contraction Reduction N/A N/A 30–45% N/A 30–50%
IL-6 Suppression 30% 10% N/A 65% N/A

Clinical Outcomes

Endpoint GHK-Cu Matrixyl Argireline Matrixyl 3000 SNAP-8
Wrinkle Reduction 35% (fine lines) 27–38% 48.9% (roughness) 70% (volume) 42% (severity)
Skin Firmness 18% 18% N/A 32% N/A
Study Duration 8–12 weeks 8–12 weeks 4–12 weeks 8–16 weeks 4–12 weeks
Typical Concentration 0.5–2% 3% 5–10% 3–5% 5–10%

Physicochemical Comparison

Property GHK-Cu Matrixyl Argireline Matrixyl 3000 SNAP-8
Solubility in Water > 50 mg/mL < 1 mg/mL > 50 mg/mL < 1 mg/mL > 50 mg/mL
Solubility in DMSO 10–20 mg/mL > 50 mg/mL > 50 mg/mL > 50 mg/mL > 50 mg/mL
Optimal pH Range 5.5–6.5 5.0–7.0 5.0–7.0 5.0–7.0 5.0–7.0
Solution Stability (4°C) 7 days 7 days 7–14 days 7 days 7–14 days
Formulation Stability 12 mo (with antioxidant) 12+ mo 12+ mo 12+ mo 12+ mo
Isoelectric Point (pI) ~7.5 ~9.8 ~10.8 ~8.5 (mean) ~8.5
Net Charge at pH 7 0 (zwitterion + Cu) +2 +2 +1 (T1), +1 (T7) +1

Penetration & Delivery Comparison

Parameter GHK-Cu Matrixyl Argireline Matrixyl 3000 SNAP-8
logP −2.5 (hydrophilic) 3.8 (lipophilic) −1.7 (hydrophilic) 4.0/3.8 (lipophilic) −1.9 (hydrophilic)
MW 466 Da 802 Da 889 Da 674 + 521 Da 1074 Da
Predicted Absorption Low Moderate Low Moderate Low
Penetration Enhancer Required Not required Required Not required Required
Recommended Formulation Liposomal O/W emulsion Liposomal O/W emulsion Liposomal

Safety Comparison

Parameter GHK-Cu Matrixyl Argireline Matrixyl 3000 SNAP-8
Dermal Irritation Non-irritant (5%) Non-irritant (5%) Non-irritant (10%) Non-irritant (8%) Non-irritant (10%)
Ocular Irritation Mild transient Mild (concentrated) Non-irritant Mild transient Non-irritant
Sensitization Non-sensitizing Non-sensitizing Non-sensitizing Non-sensitizing Non-sensitizing
Mutagenicity Negative Negative Negative Negative Negative
INCI Status Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved

Selection Guide

Choose GHK-Cu when:

  • Research requires copper-dependent enzymatic activation
  • Tissue remodeling, antioxidant, or tissue regeneration endpoints
  • Studying TGF-β-mediated collagen synthesis
  • Combination approaches with other signal peptides

Choose Matrixyl when:

  • Pure matrikine collagen stimulation is the research focus
  • Lipophilic formulation compatibility is preferred
  • Single-peptide mechanism studies are desired
  • Comparing palmitoylated vs non-palmitoylated delivery

Choose Argireline when:

  • Neuromodulatory effects on dynamic wrinkles are the endpoint
  • Comparison with SNAP-8 for SNARE inhibition studies
  • Studying acetylcholine release modulation
  • Cost-effective neuropeptide research needed

Choose Matrixyl 3000 when:

  • Combined collagen synthesis + anti-inflammatory endpoints
  • Comprehensive ECM remodeling studies
  • Maximizing anti-aging efficacy in a single formulation
  • Clinical-style formulation development

Choose SNAP-8 when:

  • Maximum SNARE complex inhibition is required
  • Enhanced muscle relaxation compared to Argireline
  • Studying structure-activity relationships in neuropeptides
  • Advanced wrinkle reduction research

Combination Potential

Combination Synergy Rationale Evidence
GHK-Cu + Matrixyl ✓ High TGF-β + matrikine = amplified collagen Preclinical
Argireline + Matrixyl 3000 ✓ High Neuromodulation + collagen/anti-inflammatory Clinical
SNAP-8 + Matrixyl 3000 ✓ High Enhanced neuromodulation + comprehensive ECM Proposed
GHK-Cu + Argireline ✓ Moderate Dermal remodeling + wrinkle reduction Clinical
Matrixyl + Matrixyl 3000 ⚠ Redundant Overlapping matrikine mechanisms Not recommended

References

  1. Pickart L, et al. (2015). GHK-Cu peptide. Oxygen Transport to Tissue XXXVII. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-19096-9_32

  2. Robinson LR, et al. (2005). Topical palmitoyl pentapeptide. Journal of Cosmetic Science. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2494.2005.00261.x

  3. Blanes-Mira C, et al. (2002). A synthetic hexapeptide with antiwrinkle activity. International Journal of Cosmetic Science. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2494.2002.00139.x

  4. Zhang L, et al. (2009). Anti-wrinkle efficacy of matrikine-based peptides. Biomaterials. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2009.07.043

  5. Gorouhi F, Maibach HI. (2009). Role of topical peptides in preventing or treating aged skin. International Journal of Cosmetic Science. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2494.2009.00497.x

  6. Lupo MP, et al. (2007). Cosmeceutical peptides. Dermatologic Therapy. DOI: 10.1111/j.1529-8019.2007.00147.x

  7. Lintner K, et al. (2004). Peptide-based anti-aging formulations. Cosmetics & Toiletries. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-2494.2004.00258.x


View cosmetic peptide product list at AMP Peptide