Longevity · Tissue repair
Cartalax
A three-amino-acid Khavinson-series short peptide whose published evidence is cell-culture work, not human joint or cartilage outcomes.
- How settled this rating is:
- low confidence in the current evidence rating
- Routes studied:
- Not established · Subcutaneous injection, Oral (marketed but never approved)
- Also known as:
- AED, AED peptide, Ala-Glu-Asp, alanyl-glutamyl-aspartic acid, T-31 peptide
- Last reviewed:
- 2026-09-22
Jump to section
Evidence passport
Cartalax
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.
- Evidence level
- L0Anecdote only
- Confidence
- Low confidence in rating
- Regulatory status
- Not approved for this use
- Development status
- Preclinical
Evidence strength
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
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
- Cell-culture research only
- Source curation
- Sources partially curated
Routes recorded
Most of this evidence comes from animals and cells
Overview
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
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: Cell-culture research only
Routes & formulations
Marketed / research routes — never approved
The published studies are laboratory cell-culture experiments. Routes seen in marketed research material have not been studied in people, so they carry no evidence about absorption or effect.
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
Discovery
Preclinical
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Approved
What it is
A synthetic tripeptide, Ala-Glu-Asp (commonly abbreviated AED), from the Khavinson family of 'short peptide bioregulators' developed in St Petersburg. Cartalax is a commercial name rather than a term fixed by a primary chemistry paper, and secondary sources disagree about the sequence sold under it, so identity should never be assumed from the label alone.
What people claim
- Cartilage regeneration and joint repair
- Reversing osteoarthritis
- Meniscus and connective-tissue healing
- Anti-ageing and geroprotection
What the evidence actually says
The molecule is real and has a small published laboratory literature, mostly from one research network, showing changes in gene expression and protein synthesis in cultured human cells. No controlled human trial of Cartalax was identified, and no cartilage, meniscus or osteoarthritis study of any kind was identified. The joint-repair marketing around the name is not supported by the published record.
Related evidence
Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.
- Related compound
B7-33 evidence profile
A synthetic single-chain peptide derived from the relaxin-2 B-chain that signals at RXFP1; evidence is cell and animal work only.
- Compare
Compare Cartalax vs B7-33 evidence
Same questions, same fields, side by side — including how much human evidence exists.
- Context
Muscle growth evidence
What the human evidence does and does not show for growth and recovery claims.
- Context
Research Desk
How to read animal, early-phase and controlled human studies without over-reading them.
Human evidence
- No controlled human interventional trial of Cartalax / AED was identified in our curated record.
- The human-derived work is in vitro: cultured human cells, not people. Studies in cultured cells cannot show whether anything happens in a living body.
- No cartilage, meniscus or osteoarthritis study of Cartalax was identified in any species. Claims about joint regeneration have no study behind them in this record.
Preclinical evidence
- A comparative cell-culture study reported that AED increased sirtuin-1, sirtuin-6 and collagen I synthesis in replicatively aged human skin fibroblasts, described by the authors as a geroprotective effect (PMID 33231794).
- A further cell-culture study reported AED effects on genes and proteins associated with fibroblast differentiation in ageing human dermal fibroblasts (Molecular Medicine, 2022).
- Wider Khavinson-group reviews place AED in an 'ultrashort peptide' family proposed to influence gene expression, and describe transport routes for di- and tripeptides into cells. These are mechanistic and review sources, not efficacy evidence.
- The literature is concentrated in a small number of related laboratories and has limited independent replication, which is a real limitation rather than a detail.
Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.
Mechanism and pathways
- Very short peptides of this family are proposed to enter cells via peptide and amino-acid transporters and to influence transcription directly.
- Reported effects are changes in gene expression and protein synthesis in culture — mechanism-level observations.
- A change in a cultured cell is not a healed tissue, and no pathway from these observations to a human joint outcome has been demonstrated.
Safety and unknowns
- No human safety dataset was identified for Cartalax in our curated record, so it cannot be described as safe or unsafe on evidence.
- Absence of reported harm in cell studies says nothing about safety in people: cell studies are not safety studies.
- Material sold under this name is unregulated. Identity, purity, sterility and labelled quantity are separate questions from what the molecule does, and sequence reports for this trade name are inconsistent.
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
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. Material is sold as a research chemical; that is a legal and supply-chain statement, not a finding that it has been shown to be harmful.
Evidence grade
Anecdotes or unverified claims without sufficiently documented supporting research.
What would change our rating?
- Independent replication of the cell-culture findings outside the originating research network.
- Any animal study with a measured tissue outcome, particularly in cartilage, since none was identified.
- A registered, controlled human trial with a pre-specified outcome.
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.
- Last editorial review
- 2026-09-22
- Recently reviewed · 24 days ago
- Linked curated sources
- 4
- Sources still pending
- 1
- External specialist reviews
- 0
- None recorded for this profile
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.
- Peer-reviewedComparison of the effects of KE and AED peptides on functional activity of human skin fibroblasts during replicative aging (PMID 33231794)PMID: 33231794
- Peer-reviewedAED peptide activates gene expression and differentiation protein synthesis of human skin fibroblasts during replicative aging. Molecular Medicine, 2022
- Peer-reviewedKhavinson et al. Peptide regulation of gene expression: a systematic review. Molecules 2021 (PMC8619776)
- Peer-reviewedTransport of biologically active ultrashort peptides using POT and LAT carriers. Int J Mol Sci 2022 (PMID 35887081)
- To be curatedNo controlled human trial, and no cartilage or osteoarthritis study of any kind, identified for this compound.
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 2026-09-22.