Skin & hair · Cosmetic & aesthetic
PTD-DBM
A cell-penetrating peptide designed to block CXXC5 and boost Wnt signalling; it regrew hair in mice. No human hair-regrowth result has been shown.
- How settled this rating is:
- low confidence in the current evidence rating
- Routes studied:
- Not established · Topical (marketed but never approved)
- Also known as:
- CXXC5-Dishevelled competing peptide, protein transduction domain–Dvl-binding motif peptide
- Last reviewed:
- 2026-09-26
Jump to section
Evidence passport
PTD-DBM
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 (human cells and mice)
- 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 (human cells and mice)
Routes & formulations
Marketed / research routes — never approved
Mouse studies used topical application to skin. 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 research peptide from Yonsei University that joins a protein-transduction (cell-entry) domain to a Dishevelled-binding motif, designed to stop CXXC5 from dampening Wnt/β-catenin signalling. It is different from KY19382, a later small molecule from the same group.
What people claim
- Hair regrowth
- Hair-loss treatment
- Wound healing
What the evidence actually says
The 2017 J Invest Dermatol study found CXXC5 raised in human balding scalp, tested effects in cultured human dermal papilla cells, and reported faster hair regrowth and wound-induced hair follicle neogenesis in mice treated with PTD-DBM (with valproic acid). No human hair-regrowth study was identified.
Related evidence
Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.
- Related compound
GHK-Cu evidence profile
Decent cosmetic evidence on the skin, very different question when people inject it.
- Compare
Compare PTD-DBM vs GHK-Cu 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
- Human tissue and cultured human dermal papilla cells were studied; no person was treated.
- No human clinical trial of PTD-DBM was identified.
Preclinical evidence
- Mouse models: accelerated hair regrowth and wound-induced hair neogenesis (Lee et al., J Invest Dermatol 2017, PMID 28595998).
- Human hair follicle dermal papilla cells: CXXC5 inhibited alkaline phosphatase activity and proliferation (same paper).
- A 2021 paper on the distinct small molecule KY19382 discusses PTD-DBM as background; KY19382 results are not PTD-DBM evidence.
Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.
Mechanism and pathways
- Competes with CXXC5 for Dishevelled binding, releasing Wnt/β-catenin signalling in hair-follicle cells.
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.
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. Sale as a 'research chemical' is a legal and supply-chain statement, not evidence of benefit or harm.
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?
- A registered human trial with published hair-count outcomes.
- Independent replication in mice.
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
- 2
- 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-reviewedLee et al. Targeting of CXXC5 by a competing peptide stimulates hair regrowth and wound-induced hair neogenesis. J Invest Dermatol 2017 (PMID 28595998)PMID: 28595998
- Peer-reviewed2021 study of the distinct small molecule KY19382, with PTD-DBM background (PMC8251890) — not PTD-DBM evidence
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.