Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Longevity

Cardiogen

A Khavinson-series tetrapeptide tested on rat heart-tissue explants in a dish; not the CardioGen-82 heart-imaging agent, and not tested on living hearts.

L1Theory onlyNot approved for this usePreclinical
How settled this rating is:
very-low confidence in the current evidence rating
Routes studied:
Not established · Subcutaneous injection, Oral (marketed but never approved)
Also known as:
AEDR (reported), Ala-Glu-Asp-Arg (reported)
Last reviewed:
2026-09-26
Jump to section

Evidence passport

Cardiogen

A one-screen evidence identity for this compound. These fields describe research maturity, confidence and legal status. They are not a safety guarantee, efficacy percentage or recommendation.

Reviewed 2026-09-26
Evidence level
L1Theory only
Confidence
Very low confidence in rating
Regulatory status
Not approved for this use
Development status
Preclinical

Evidence strength

Human efficacy evidence1 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Human safety evidence2 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

The 0-100 values rate the strength and maturity of evidence, not how effective or safe the compound is.

Evidence base
Mostly animal and laboratory research
Furthest established stage
Not established
Human research maturity
Preclinical (organotypic tissue culture)
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

SC injection· unapprovedOral· unapproved

Most of this evidence comes from animals and cells

The supporting research for Cardiogen is predominantly preclinical (Level 1–2). That is a legitimate starting point for science and a poor basis for personal decisions. Human results are not simply a scaled-up version of mouse results.

Overview

Human efficacy evidence strength1 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.

Preclinical (animal / lab) evidence strength10 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.

Human safety evidence strength2 of 100 evidence strength

Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.

How to read these scores

Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.

  • Human efficacy evidence strength — Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
  • Preclinical evidence strength — Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
  • Human safety evidence strength — Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number. A score of 80 does not mean “80% safe”.
  • Evidence level (L0-L5) — the strongest type of study behind the compound, from anecdote (L0) to large replicated human trials (L5). It is a description of the study evidence, not a quality, safety or recommendation rating.
  • Confidence — how likely we think it is that this rating changes as new research lands. Low confidence means the picture is unsettled, not that the compound is bad.

None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.

How far human research has progressed: Preclinical (organotypic tissue culture)

Routes & formulations

Marketed / research routes — never approved

SC injection· unapprovedOral· unapproved

The cited study used tissue explants in culture. No route has been studied in animals or people.

Route availability is not evidence of efficacy, and evidence from one route does not transfer to another. The Registry never provides dosing or sourcing information.

Peptide lifecycle

  1. Discovery

  2. Preclinical

  3. Phase I

  4. Phase II

  5. Phase III

  6. Approved

PreclinicalFurthest stage not established in our curated record

What it is

A synthetic tetrapeptide from the St Petersburg bioregulator network, commonly reported as Ala-Glu-Asp-Arg (AEDR). A 2013 primary paper studied AEDR among other short peptides but its abstract does not name it Cardiogen, and the 2009 Cardiogen abstract does not state a sequence — so the name-to-sequence link is reported, not independently confirmed here.

What people claim

  • Heart protection
  • Cardiac anti-ageing

What the evidence actually says

A 2009 study applied Cardiogen to organotypic heart-tissue explants from 3- and 24-month-old rats and reported more cell proliferation and lower p53 expression. Explants in a dish are not a living heart: this says nothing about heart function in animals or people.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • No human study of Cardiogen was identified.

Preclinical evidence

  • Rat myocardial explant cultures (young and old): increased proliferation, reduced p53 staining (Chalisova et al., Adv Gerontol 2009, PMID 20210190, Russian).
  • AEDR binding to plant histones in vitro, without naming Cardiogen (Fedoreyeva et al., Biochemistry (Mosc) 2013, PMID 23581987).

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • Proposed anti-apoptotic effect inferred from reduced p53 staining in explants; not tested in vivo.

Safety and unknowns

  • No animal or human safety data identified.
  • Material sold online is unregulated: identity, purity, sterility and labelled quantity are separate questions from what the published molecule does.

Cancer relevance

This section covers questions raised by how the compound works in the body, plus anything regulators and trial teams keep an eye on. It is not a statement that this compound causes cancer — for most compounds here, no human data exist in either direction.

Theoretical / mechanistic concern only

Not established. Increased proliferation and reduced p53 in tissue culture are reasons for caution, not findings of risk.

Regulatory status

Regulatory decisions apply to specific jurisdictions, products, formulations and indications. An approval elsewhere is not automatically an approval in your country.

Check the regulatory note and linked primary sources for jurisdiction-specific details.

Not an approved medicine in any major jurisdiction. Sale as a 'research chemical' is a legal and supply-chain statement, not evidence of benefit or harm. Not to be confused with CardioGen-82 (rubidium-82 generator), an approved PET heart-imaging product that is unrelated to this peptide.

Evidence grade

L1Theory onlyVery low confidence in rating

Mechanistic rationale or early development without qualifying compound-specific outcome evidence. A registered trial is not a result.

What would change our rating?

  • A primary paper that fixes Cardiogen's sequence by name.
  • Living-animal cardiac studies with toxicology, then a registered human study.

References and sources

Source transparency

A provenance snapshot of this profile. Counts show what kinds of sources are cited, not how much scientific weight each source deserves.

Sources fully curated
Last editorial review
2026-09-26
Recently reviewed · 20 days ago
Linked curated sources
2
Sources still pending
0
External specialist reviews
0
None recorded for this profile
Peer-reviewed: 2

Review provenance

Registry editorial review: Colin Jackson-White, creator and editor, who is not a doctor or clinician. External specialist review is credited only when a named reviewer has completed a review of this exact profile.

Literature-discovery and AI tools may help locate or challenge candidate evidence, but they are not counted as evidence sources here. Registry judgements are tied to the underlying papers, trial records, regulator documents and official study records.

Source hierarchy: regulatory documents and trial registries first, peer-reviewed work next, sponsor material flagged as non-independent. We never use supplier or clinic marketing as evidence, and where a verified source has not yet been curated we say so rather than inventing one.

Evidence change history

These entries record changes to our assessment of the published evidence — not changes to the compound itself.

No recorded changes yet. Baseline position set on 2026-09-26.