Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Metabolic & endocrine · Mitochondria

SLU-PP-915

A small-molecule research chemical — not a peptide — that activates the ERR nuclear receptors and increased running capacity in mice. No human data.

L2Animal / lab studiesResearch / unapproved supplyPreclinicalSmall molecule — not a peptide
How settled this rating is:
very-low confidence in the current evidence rating
Routes studied:
Not established · Oral (marketed but never approved)
Also known as:
pan-ERR agonist SLU-PP-915, oral exercise mimetic research chemical
Last reviewed:
2026-09-21
Jump to section

Evidence passport

SLU-PP-915

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 2026-09-21
Evidence level
L2Animal / lab studies
Confidence
Very low confidence in rating
Regulatory status
Research / unapproved supply
Development status
Preclinical

Evidence strength

Human efficacy evidence0 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 evidence3 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
Preclinical
Human research maturity
Preclinical only — animal and cell work, no human study identified
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

Oral· unapproved

Most of this evidence comes from animals and cells

The supporting research for SLU-PP-915 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 strength0 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 strength40 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 strength3 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 only — animal and cell work, no human study identified

Routes & formulations

Marketed / research routes — never approved

Oral· unapproved

The published work gives it orally and by injection to mice. Oral bioavailability in rodents is a pharmacology finding, not evidence of a safe or effective human dose.

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

    Furthest established stage

  3. Phase I

  4. Phase II

  5. Phase III

  6. Approved

Preclinical

Academic medicinal-chemistry programme. No clinical trial, IND or regulatory submission is established in our record.

Last documented development: 2026 — Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics report of oral activity in mice; 2026 anti-doping analytical characterisation

What it is

A synthetic small molecule, not made of amino acids, that activates the estrogen-related receptors — orphan nuclear receptors governing mitochondrial biogenesis, oxidative phosphorylation and fat oxidation. It is the orally bioavailable successor to the earlier tool compound SLU-PP-332, and is described as an 'exercise mimetic' because it switches on some of the gene programme exercise switches on.

What people claim

  • Exercise in a capsule
  • Fat loss and endurance gains without training
  • Mitochondrial rejuvenation

What the evidence actually says

The published pharmacology is genuine and interesting: this compound is orally active in mice and increased aerobic exercise capacity there. That is a rodent result. There is no human efficacy or safety study in our curated record, no approved use, and no basis for treating a mouse treadmill finding as a training substitute in people.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • No human study of SLU-PP-915 was identified in our curated record — no trial, no pharmacokinetic study, no safety dataset.

Preclinical evidence

  • A 2026 report in the Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics characterises SLU-PP-915 as an orally bioavailable ERR pan-agonist that increased running distance and duration in mice, induced the exercise-responsive gene Ddit4, and added to the effect of exercise training on mitochondrial gene expression.
  • The compound was originally identified in a 2023 medicinal-chemistry series of pan-ERR agonists, where the boronic-acid design was intended to deliver oral exposure the earlier SLU-PP-332 lacked.
  • A 2026 analytical paper characterises SLU-PP-915 and SLU-PP-332 by liquid chromatography high-resolution tandem mass spectrometry for anti-doping testing — evidence that it is being detected in sports samples, not evidence that it works.

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

Triple agonistOne molecule acting at three named receptors.

Receptor targets: Estrogen-related receptors ERRα, ERRβ and ERRγ (pan-agonist)

Mechanism class counts the receptors the pharmacology engages and says whether one molecule or several drugs do it. More targets is not the same as more effective, and none of these labels is a receptor name — there is no GLP-3, GLP-4 or GLP-5 receptor.

  • Agonism at ERRα, ERRβ and ERRγ, which regulate transcription of mitochondrial biogenesis, oxidative phosphorylation, fatty-acid oxidation and Krebs-cycle genes.
  • Exercise itself raises ERR activity, which is where the 'exercise mimetic' framing comes from. Reproducing part of a transcriptional programme is not the same as reproducing the health effects of training.

Safety and unknowns

  • No human safety data exist. Tolerability, long-term effects and interactions are unknown.
  • Chronic activation of broad metabolic transcription programmes is an open question rather than a documented risk profile.
  • Material sold under this name is unregulated, and its identity, purity and content are unverified.

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

Not established. ERR signalling has been studied in tumour biology in both directions, and no human data exist for this compound, so we make no claim either way.

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 anywhere and not established in human trials in our curated record. It exists as a laboratory tool compound; anything sold under the name is unapproved research material.

Evidence grade

L2Animal / lab studiesVery low confidence in rating

Documented compound-specific animal or laboratory outcome findings, without qualifying human evidence for the assessed benefit.

What would change our rating?

  • Any registered human trial, including a Phase 1 safety and pharmacokinetic study.
  • Independent replication of the exercise-capacity findings, and evidence in a species closer to humans.

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
2026-09-21
Recently reviewed · 25 days ago
Linked curated sources
3
Sources still pending
0
External specialist reviews
0
None recorded for this profile
Peer-reviewed: 3

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 2026-09-21.

Related claims we’ve checked — in full

Claim verdict

Emerging & adjacent molecules

MisleadingL2Animal / lab studies

“SLU-PP-915 is exercise in a capsule — the studies show it delivers the benefits of training.”

This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.

Registry verdict

Misleading — the studies are in mice, and it is not a peptide either.

Why this verdict

  • The 2026 pharmacology paper reports increased running distance and duration in mice given an orally active ERR pan-agonist, plus induction of exercise-responsive genes. That is a rodent result.
  • No human study of SLU-PP-915 was identified in our curated record — no efficacy trial, no safety dataset, no approved use.
  • Reproducing part of a transcriptional programme that exercise switches on is not the same as reproducing what training does to a person.
  • It is also a small molecule, not a peptide, despite where it is being marketed and discussed.