Skip to content
Peptide Evidence Registry

Longevity

Vesugen

A Khavinson-series short peptide studied in cell cultures and by computer docking; no vascular benefit in people has been shown.

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:
KED, Lys-Glu-Asp (reported)
Last reviewed:
2026-09-26
Jump to section

Evidence passport

Vesugen

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 evidence2 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 evidence2 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 (cell culture and molecular docking)
Source curation
Sources fully curated

Routes recorded

Oral· unapprovedSC injection· unapproved

Most of this evidence comes from animals and cells

The supporting research for Vesugen 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 strength2 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 strength12 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 strength2 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 (cell culture and molecular docking)

Routes & formulations

Marketed / research routes — never approved

Oral· unapprovedSC injection· unapproved

The cited work is cell culture and molecular docking. No human route has been validated.

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 short synthetic peptide from the St Petersburg bioregulator network. It is usually reported as the tripeptide Lys-Glu-Asp (KED); KED appears by sequence in academic work from the same network, but the cited Vesugen abstract itself does not state the sequence. Vesugen is not the same as the vendor name 'Vesilute/Vesilut', whose identity is unresolved.

What people claim

  • Vascular protection
  • Anti-ageing of blood vessels

What the evidence actually says

A 2014 study reported increased Ki-67 (a proliferation marker) in tissue-specific and vascular endothelial cell cultures from young and old animals, plus computer docking to the MKI67 gene promoter. This is cell and in-silico work only and is not evidence of vascular benefit in people.

Related evidence

Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.

Human evidence

  • No registered, independent, controlled human trial of Vesugen was identified.
  • The 2014 abstract refers to a vasoprotective effect 'revealed previously in elder people'; that earlier work was not identified or verified here.

Preclinical evidence

  • Cell cultures from young and old animals and vascular endothelial cultures: increased Ki-67 expression; molecular docking to the MKI67 promoter (Khavinson et al., Adv Gerontol 2014, PMID 25051766, Russian).

Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.

Mechanism and pathways

  • Proposed epigenetic regulation of Ki-67 gene expression; based on docking and cell data only.

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

Not established. The only cited finding is increased cell-proliferation marker expression, which is a reason for caution rather than a finding of risk.

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?

  • A primary paper that names Vesugen and fixes its sequence.
  • Independent replication and a registered controlled human study.

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.