Immune & inflammation
PNC-27
A 32-residue chimeric peptide (p53 residues 12–26 plus a membrane-penetrating leader) studied against cancer cells in the laboratory only.
- How settled this rating is:
- low confidence in the current evidence rating
- Routes studied:
- Not established · Subcutaneous injection, Intravenous (marketed but never approved)
- Also known as:
- p53-penetratin chimeric peptide
- Last reviewed:
- 2026-09-26
Jump to section
Evidence passport
PNC-27
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
- L1Theory 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
- Preclinical (cell-culture and limited animal work)
- Source curation
- Sources fully 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: Preclinical (cell-culture and limited animal work)
Routes & formulations
Marketed / research routes — never approved
Evidence is from cell cultures and limited animal work. No human route has been studied.
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 chimeric peptide combining the HDM-2-binding domain of p53 (residues 12–26) with a penetratin cell-penetrating leader sequence, developed by academic groups at SUNY Downstate.
What people claim
- Kills cancer cells while sparing normal cells
- Alternative cancer treatment
What the evidence actually says
Laboratory studies report membrane-pore formation and lysis in several cancer cell lines, but not in the untransformed control cells tested. No registered human trial was identified. Laboratory cytotoxicity is not evidence of a safe or effective cancer treatment, and it must never replace established care.
Related evidence
Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.
- Related compound
Bronchogen evidence profile
A Khavinson-series tetrapeptide studied in a rat model of lung damage from nitrogen dioxide; no human study. Its reported sequence is inconsistent across sources.
- Compare
Compare PNC-27 vs Bronchogen evidence
Same questions, same fields, side by side — including how much human evidence exists.
- Context
Research Desk
How to read animal, early-phase and controlled human studies without over-reading them.
- Context
Safety Centre
What approved, investigational and unapproved actually mean for documented human safety.
Human evidence
- No human clinical trial of PNC-27 was identified in our curated record.
Preclinical evidence
- PNAS 2010: PNC-27 binds HDM-2 in cancer-cell membranes and induces membranolysis (PMID 20080680).
- Leukaemia cell lines: reported necrosis in AML lines but not normal haematopoietic cells (PMID 32878773).
- Structural and immuno-EM work proposing PNC-27/HDM-2 pore complexes (PMID 35625682).
- The literature comes largely from one research network; independent replication is limited.
Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.
Mechanism and pathways
- Proposed to bind HDM-2 expressed on cancer-cell plasma membranes and form cytotoxic pores.
- Selectivity depends on membrane HDM-2 expression, which has not been characterised across human tumours in vivo.
Safety and unknowns
- No 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.
No established human signal
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. It is not an approved or trial-validated cancer treatment.
Evidence grade
Mechanistic rationale or early development without qualifying compound-specific outcome evidence. A registered trial is not a result.
What would change our rating?
- Independent in-vivo tumour studies with toxicology.
- A registered Phase 1 oncology trial with published results.
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
- 2026-09-26
- Recently reviewed · 20 days ago
- Linked curated sources
- 3
- Sources still pending
- 0
- 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-reviewedSarafraz-Yazdi et al. Anticancer peptide PNC-27 adopts an HDM-2-binding conformation and kills cancer cells. PNAS 2010
- Peer-reviewedTargeting membrane HDM-2 by PNC-27 induces necrosis in leukemia cells but not normal hematopoietic cells (PMID 32878773)PMID: 32878773
- Peer-reviewedPNC-27 binds HDM-2 in a p53 peptide-like structure and induces selective membrane-pore formation (PMID 35625682)PMID: 35625682
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.