Two different products are sold under the name CJC-1295, and they are 280 daltons and one dosing schedule apart. The without-DAC form weighs 3,367.9 Da; the with-DAC form roughly 3,647. Mass spectrometry is the only check that separates them.
CJC-1295 sits in the growth hormone peptides category. The evidence picture for the short-acting form — a molecule with no human trial of its own — is in CJC-1295 without DAC (Mod GRF 1-29); this page is about the vial, the label and the five substances that share the name. For per-injection volume there is the CJC-1295 and ipamorelin calculator.
What is CJC-1295, and why does source quality matter?
CJC-1295 without DAC, also sold as Mod GRF 1-29, is GHRH(1-29) carrying four substitutions — D-Ala2, Gln8, Ala15, Leu27 — and a C-terminal amide, CAS 863288-34-0, formula C₁₅₂H₂₅₂N₄₄O₄₂, molecular weight 3,367.9 g/mol, half-life about 30 minutes. Source quality matters because a second product, the DAC form at roughly 3,647 Da, is sold under the same unqualified name, is dosed weekly rather than daily, and carries all of the human data.
Property | Value |
|---|---|
Sequence | GHRH(1-29) with D-Ala2, Gln8, Ala15, Leu27 substitutions and a C-terminal amide |
Length | 29 amino acids |
CAS | 863288-34-0 (PubChem CID 56841945) |
Formula / MW | C₁₅₂H₂₅₂N₄₄O₄₂ / 3,367.9 g/mol |
Half-life | ~30 minutes |
Also known as | Mod GRF 1-29, Modified GRF (1-29) |
The substitutions exist to resist enzymatic degradation, principally by DPP-IV, which clears native GHRH within minutes. The DAC form adds one thing to that same backbone: a thirtieth lysine bearing a maleimidopropionyl group that binds covalently to circulating albumin. That single addition extends half-life from about half an hour to roughly 5.8–8.1 days and mass from 3,367.9 to about 3,647 Da. Same backbone, radically different pharmacokinetics — and radically different amounts of evidence.
The sourcing risk follows directly from that asymmetry. No published human study of the no-DAC form exists. The two human trials routinely cited for CJC-1295 — Teichman 2006 and Ionescu and Frohman 2006, both in JCEM — used the DAC form, and every figure that travels with the name belongs to that molecule: the 2- to 10-fold GH elevation, the 1.5- to 3-fold IGF-1 rise, the 5.8–8.1 day half-life. A vendor listing "CJC-1295" with those numbers attached and a daily dosing suggestion has combined two products in one description.
One correction to our own page, stated here rather than buried. The CJC-1295 without DAC compound page currently shows a molecular weight of 3,645.9, which is a DAC-form figure — roughly 280 daltons above this molecule's actual mass, and the same gap that separates the two products. The correct value for the no-DAC form is 3,367.9 g/mol. That page is being corrected, and until it is, use the value in the table above rather than the one on the page. We are naming it because a buyer checking a vendor's spec sheet against ours would currently be checking it against the wrong number.
What is the regulatory status of CJC-1295?
CJC-1295 is not approved by the FDA, EMA or TGA, and no compounding route exists as of August 2026. FDA placed it in 503A Category 2 in September 2023, removed it in September 2024 after the nominators withdrew and referred it for advisory review, and at the Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee meeting of 4 December 2024 proposed that all five CJC-1295 substances be excluded from the 503A bulks list. The committee agreed. WADA prohibits both forms at all times under S2.2.4.
Because the route was reviewed and closed rather than left open, this page has no compounded-CJC-1295 section. The five substances are the free base, the acetate, the DAC free base, the DAC acetate and the DAC trifluoroacetate — every form on the market, including the one this article is about.
The direction of travel matters, because it runs opposite to the rest of this cluster. CJC-1295 was not on the July 2026 PCAC agenda, so the December 2024 outcome stands. BPC-157, KPV, TB-500 and MOTS-c were recommended for the bulks list in July 2026; CJC-1295 was reviewed earlier and rejected. "Peptides are being reconsidered by FDA" is true in general and false for this one — a distinction worth keeping straight when a seller cites the July 2026 news to imply a change here. Our FDA peptide regulation timeline tracks where each nomination actually stands.
On sport, both forms are prohibited at all times on the 2026 WADA Prohibited List under S2.2.4, Growth Hormone Releasing Factors, which names GHRH analogues explicitly alongside CJC-1293, sermorelin and tesamorelin. That is a named-category prohibition, not an inference from a catch-all clause.
Claim you will meet while shopping | What the record says | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
"Raises GH 2- to 10-fold" | Demonstrated — for the DAC form, in Teichman 2006 | Wrong form, right principle |
"Half-life of 5.8 to 8.1 days" | That is the DAC form; the no-DAC form is ~30 minutes | Wrong product entirely |
"Increases IGF-1 by a specific percentage" | No no-DAC dose-response study exists | No source |
"Preserves natural GH pulsatility" | Demonstrated for the DAC form under continuous stimulation | Parent-form evidence |
"Builds lean mass / reduces fat" | No human body-composition trial | No data |
"Saturation dose is around 100 mcg" | Community convention; no dose-response data | Unverified |
"Safer than the DAC form because it clears faster" | Reasonable hypothesis; never tested comparatively | Untested |
"FDA is reconsidering peptides, so this one too" | Rejected December 2024; not on the July 2026 agenda | False |
"Not banned, it's a natural GH releaser" | Prohibited at all times under WADA S2.2.4 | No |
How do you tell the no-DAC form from the DAC form and from sermorelin?
Mass spectrometry, and nothing else. The two CJC-1295 forms differ by about 280 Da — 3,367.9 Da without DAC against roughly 3,647 Da with it — a gap any mass spectrometer resolves trivially and no HPLC purity figure addresses. Sermorelin is the harder discrimination: native GHRH(1-29) sits just 10 daltons below the no-DAC form at 3,357.9, close enough that a nominal mass alone will not settle it.
Without DAC (Mod GRF 1-29) | With DAC | Sermorelin | |
|---|---|---|---|
Molecule | GHRH(1-29) + 4 substitutions, C-terminal amide | Same backbone + albumin-binding lysine | Native, unmodified GHRH(1-29) |
Mass | 3,367.9 Da | ~3,647 Da | 3,357.9 Da |
Gap from the no-DAC form | — | +280 Da | −10 Da |
Half-life | ~30 minutes | 5.8–8.1 days | — |
Dosing | Daily or twice daily | Weekly | — |
Human data | None published | Phase 1–2; programme terminated 2006 | The only member of this family FDA ever approved |
The 280-dalton problem is a labelling problem with a trivial technical solution, and it needs solving because the two are not interchangeable products: one is dosed daily, the other weekly. Get that wrong in either direction and the schedule is wrong by a factor of seven.
The 10-dalton problem is different in kind. A gap that small is not resolved by a nominal mass on a low-resolution instrument, so the useful request is a high-resolution result reporting elemental composition rather than a single rounded number — the no-DAC form is C₁₅₂H₂₅₂N₄₄O₄₂, and the four substitutions that distinguish it from native GHRH(1-29), including Leu27, change the composition rather than merely the mass. Sermorelin's own evidence and approval history are in sermorelin: GHRH and natural GH release, and the full side-by-side of the two CJC forms is in CJC-1295 vs CJC-1295 with DAC.
A caution on public databases closes this out. PubChem's records for CJC-1295 carry conflated synonyms, with both DAC and no-DAC names attached to the same structure. A vendor screenshotting a database entry has not confirmed anything — verify against the mass and the structure rather than trusting a name in a synonym list. See mass spectrometry for peptides for what an identity result establishes that a purity figure cannot.
7 things to check before ordering CJC-1295
Seven checks cover CJC-1295, and three of them are about what the seller wrote rather than what a laboratory measured. Mass spectrometry at 3,367.9 Da, whether the listing qualifies the name at all, the CAS and salt form among five distinct substances, the molecular weight printed on the spec sheet, any chemical-database record read with care, HPLC purity against a 99.53 benchmark, and an honest account of what none of it can establish.
Mass spectrometry at 3,367.9 Da. This is the check that separates the product you are buying from the one that carries all the published human data, and it is the only one that does. Roughly 3,647 Da is the DAC form. Insist on a batch-matched result; a specimen certificate from an earlier lot tells you about a different vial.
Whether the listing qualifies the name at all. "CJC-1295" with no DAC status is an ambiguous product description, not a specification. The no-DAC form has unambiguous names — Mod GRF 1-29, Modified GRF (1-29) — and a vendor that never writes "with DAC" or "without DAC" anywhere on the page is either not distinguishing them or not able to.
The CAS number and the salt form. 863288-34-0 is the no-DAC form. Five distinct substances exist under this name — free base, acetate, DAC free base, DAC acetate and DAC trifluoroacetate — so the salt matters for what you are actually weighing out of a labelled vial, and a DAC CAS printed under a no-DAC listing is a direct contradiction on the page.
The molecular weight the seller prints, checked against 3,367.9. A no-DAC listing showing 3,645.9 or ~3,647 has copied a DAC figure. This is a specification error rather than a rounding error, and it is common enough that our own compound page currently carries it — we say so above, and the same standard applies to any vendor's page.
A chemical-database record, read as a starting point rather than proof. PubChem's CJC-1295 entries carry conflated synonyms, with DAC and no-DAC names attached to the same structure. A screenshot of a database page is not an identity result for your batch. See red flags in peptide certificates of analysis for documents that assert more than they show.
Third-party HPLC purity, plus net content and endotoxin. This platform records the no-DAC form at 99.53 against a composite of 99.50 and 99.23 for the DAC form, so "above 98%" describes a standard the market already clears. Purity is not quantity — ask separately for a net content or amino acid analysis figure (why 10 mg isn't 10 mg) — and an absent LAL endotoxin result means the batch was not tested rather than that it passed.
What no certificate can establish. A perfect CoA confirms you received a 29-residue peptide of the right mass at the stated quantity. It cannot tell you what that peptide does, because no published human study of the no-DAC form exists — the magnitude, the duration, the body-composition effect and the optimal dose have never been measured in people for this molecule — and the clinical programme for the family ended with NCT00267527, terminated in July 2006 after a participant died of a myocardial infarction hours after an eleventh weekly dose. That death was attributed to pre-existing asymptomatic coronary artery disease, and no sponsor has pursued registration in the twenty years since.
Check | What it confirms | How to verify | Red flag |
|---|---|---|---|
Mass spectrometry | Which form you have — 3,367.9 Da (no DAC) vs ~3,647 Da (with DAC) | Batch-matched CoA with the MS result | Purity given with no identity test |
How the product is named | Whether the vendor distinguishes the forms | "Mod GRF 1-29" or "without DAC" stated explicitly | Unqualified "CJC-1295" with no DAC status anywhere |
CAS and salt form | Which of the five substances you bought | 863288-34-0; free base or acetate stated | A DAC CAS under a no-DAC listing; no salt stated |
The molecular weight printed | Whether the spec was checked or copied | 3,367.9 g/mol, C₁₅₂H₂₅₂N₄₄O₄₂ | 3,645.9 or ~3,647 on a no-DAC listing — including on our own page |
Sermorelin discrimination | It is not native GHRH(1-29) at 3,357.9 | High-resolution MS reporting elemental composition | A 10-dalton gap treated as within tolerance |
HPLC purity | Proportion of intended peptide | Third-party CoA from a named lab | Below the 99.53 no-DAC figure; vendor's own document only |
Net content and endotoxin | Quantity, and pyrogens in injectable material | Net content or amino acid analysis; LAL result | Purity quoted as quantity; LAL not mentioned |
Two of those checks cost nothing and can be run before any purchase, by reading the product page. On a compound whose central failure is a naming collapse rather than a manufacturing defect, that is where most of the available protection actually sits.
Where does CJC-1295 rank on Peptigrity's lab test database?
Peptigrity's Purity Index records CJC-1295 without DAC at 99.53 (verified August 2026), above the platform composite of 99.50 and above the 99.23 recorded for CJC-1295 with DAC. Peptigrity tracks 530 shops and 11,852 independent lab tests across 118 peptides, with 1,283 community reviews (verified August 2026), weighting community reviews and independently verified purity equally at 50% each in every trust score, with no financial relationship influencing the ranking.
Read that purity ordering carefully, because it is easy to over-interpret. It says the material sold as the no-DAC form tests marginally cleaner than the material sold as the DAC form. It does not say that either was correctly identified, since a purity figure reports the proportion of a sample that is one species and not which species that is. On a compound where the two forms are routinely mislabelled, a high purity number and an absent mass result are entirely compatible with receiving the wrong product in excellent condition. Individual results are searchable in the lab test database.
CJC-1295 without DAC price data publishes shops in stock, median and lowest price per milligram with the vial size behind the lowest figure, and is the current source for cost comparisons. Read it within a single vial-size band, since fixed per-vial costs push the per-milligram figure down as fill size rises. Those figures exclude shipping, taxes and customs, coupon codes, bulk tiers, multi-vial kits and account-gated pricing.
One pricing point is specific to this compound. Because the DAC form is dosed weekly and the no-DAC form daily or twice daily, a per-milligram comparison between them is not a like-for-like cost comparison — the same milligram buys a very different number of administrations. The blend sold with a ghrelin-receptor agonist is tracked separately on the CJC-1295 and ipamorelin blend page, with the protocol in the CJC-1295 and ipamorelin stack guide.
The trial that would settle this is not a testing study. On CJC-1295 the identity question is fully answerable and the effect question has never been asked of this molecule at all.
Element | Requirement | Why |
|---|---|---|
Molecule | The no-DAC form itself | Every published human result used the DAC form |
Design | Randomised, placebo-controlled | The compound has no controlled human data of its own |
Dosing | A dose range spanning 100–200 mcg | The "saturation dose" has no dose-response study behind it |
Primary endpoint | GH and IGF-1 across weeks | The 2–10× and 1.5–3× figures belong to the sibling |
Secondary endpoint | DEXA body composition | No human body-composition trial exists for either form outside HIV |
Comparator arm | The DAC form, and ipamorelin co-administration | Both comparisons are asserted constantly and tested never |
Until that exists, the position is narrower than "avoid it" and wider than "it's fine": you are buying a molecule whose identity you can verify to the dalton and whose effects you cannot verify at all. Those two facts deserve different weights in the decision, and usually do not get them.
Frequently Asked Questions
What purity standard should CJC-1295 meet?
This platform records the no-DAC form at 99.53 against a composite of 99.50 and 99.23 for the DAC form (verified August 2026). Against a market clearing that high, "above 98%" promises less than the norm. Purity is also the second question here — an identity result at 3,367.9 Da comes first.
How much does CJC-1295 cost?
The price page publishes shops in stock, median and lowest price per milligram with the vial size behind the lowest figure. Compare within one vial-size band, and never compare per-milligram across the two forms: the DAC form is dosed weekly and the no-DAC form daily, so the same milligram buys a very different number of administrations.
Is CJC-1295 legal to compound?
No. FDA proposed in December 2024 that all five CJC-1295 substances — free base, acetate, DAC free base, DAC acetate and DAC trifluoroacetate — not be included on the 503A bulks list, and the advisory committee agreed. It was not revisited in July 2026. Both forms are also prohibited in sport at all times under WADA S2.2.4.
How do I know which form is in my vial?
Mass spectrometry: 3,367.9 Da is the no-DAC form, roughly 3,647 Da is the DAC form. Vendors frequently sell both under the unqualified name "CJC-1295," an HPLC purity figure cannot tell them apart, and PubChem's synonym lists conflate them — so verify against the mass and the structure.
Does it work better with ipamorelin?
The receptor rationale is sound: GHRH-R and GHS-R1a are separate receptors on the same pituitary somatotrophs, so stimulating both is expected to release more GH than either alone. No controlled human trial has quantified the combination for this GHRH form, which means any specific synergy percentage you are shown is unsourced.
Why did CJC-1295 development stop?
The Phase 2 trial in HIV-associated visceral obesity was halted in July 2006 after a participant died of a myocardial infarction hours after an eleventh weekly dose. The attending physician attributed the death to pre-existing asymptomatic coronary artery disease rather than the study drug, but ConjuChem ended the programme and no sponsor has restarted it in twenty years.
Browse the growth hormone peptides category, or our complete peptide guide with 118 compounds (verified August 2026). For per-injection volume, use the CJC-1295 and ipamorelin calculator alongside the reconstitution calculator. Compare shops through independent lab tests and community-verified shop reviews.
This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Peptides discussed may be investigational compounds not approved by the FDA (or equivalent regulators in your jurisdiction) for human use. Always consult a qualified healthcare provider before using any peptide or research compound. Peptigrity is an independent review platform and does not sell, endorse, or recommend specific products or vendors.
