Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Longevity

Prostamax

A tetrapeptide studied in cultured human lymphocytes; the cited work measured chromosome and chromatin changes, not prostate outcomes in patients.

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

Evidence passport

Prostamax

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 evidence1 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 (human-derived cell culture)
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

Oral· unapprovedSC injection· unapproved

Most of this evidence comes from animals and cells

The supporting research for Prostamax 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 strength8 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 strength1 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 (human-derived cell culture)

Routes & formulations

Marketed / research routes — never approved

Oral· unapprovedSC injection· unapproved

The cited experiment exposed cultured cells. It did not administer Prostamax to a person or establish any route.

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 identified by name and sequence as Lys-Glu-Asp-Pro in a 2012 primary paper. Despite its prostate-themed name, the curated paper studied chromatin and chromosomes in cultured lymphocytes from older donors; it did not study prostate disease or treat patients.

What people claim

  • Prostate support
  • Anti-ageing
  • Cellular rejuvenation

What the evidence actually says

One study exposed cultured human lymphocytes from donors aged 75–86 to Prostamax and reported changes in heterochromatin, ribosomal genes and chromosome measures. Increased sister chromatid exchange can indicate genomic stress or damage, so it must not be reframed as a benign anti-ageing result. No verified patient intervention or prostate-efficacy study was identified.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • Human-derived cells were studied outside the body; no participant received Prostamax.
  • No verified controlled human efficacy or safety study was identified.

Preclinical evidence

  • Cultured lymphocytes from older human donors: reported chromatin changes and increased sister chromatid exchange (PMID 23221144).

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • The paper reports chromosome and chromatin responses in cell culture; a clinically relevant molecular target or mechanism has not been established.

Safety and unknowns

  • The reported increase in sister chromatid exchange warrants a potentially genotoxic interpretation rather than reassurance.
  • No animal toxicology or human safety study was 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

Unknown. Increased sister chromatid exchange in cultured cells is a genomic-instability signal that requires investigation; it does not establish cancer risk or safety in people.

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.

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?

  • Independent replication with prespecified genotoxicity assays and a clear concentration-response relationship.
  • Animal toxicology before any ethically reviewed human investigation.

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
1
Sources still pending
0
External specialist reviews
0
None recorded for this profile
Peer-reviewed: 1

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.