Cartalax vs Livagen
The distinction that mattersSame laboratory and the same shape of evidence with a different assigned organ: Livagen is the four-residue KEDA sold for the liver, Cartalax the three-residue AED sold for cartilage. They are sold side by side as 'bioregulators' and neither has a published human trial; Livagen's only human record is an example in an expired patent.
These are not equivalent in evidence Livagen is rated 2/5 and Cartalax is rated 1/5 — a gap of 1 level on our scale. Similar marketing does not mean similar proof.
| Cartalax Research Use Only | Livagen Research Use Only | |
|---|---|---|
| Evidence rating |
1/5 Minimal
Evidence rating 1 out of 5: Minimal
|
2/5 Limited
Evidence rating 2 out of 5: Limited
|
| Regulatory status | Not an approved medicine anywhere. In Russia it is sold as a capsule food supplement rather than as a registered drug; elsewhere it moves under research-use-only labelling. No registered human trial exists as of September 2026. | Not an approved medicine anywhere. The US patent on the sequence lapsed in 2014 and nothing is marketed under this name through any regulator; it circulates under research-use-only labelling. No registered human trial exists as of October 2026. |
| Category | Healing & Tissue Repair | Longevity & Mitochondrial |
| Drug class | Synthetic tripeptide Ala-Glu-Asp, one of the Khavinson short peptide bioregulators, designed from the composition of an animal cartilage polypeptide extract | Synthetic tetrapeptide Lys-Glu-Asp-Ala, one of the Khavinson short peptide bioregulators, designed from the amino acid composition of a calf-liver polypeptide extract |
| Route | Marketed in Russia as an oral capsule and on the grey market as a lyophilised powder for injection; neither route has been studied in a person. | Grey-market lyophilised powder for injection, also swallowed by some users; the inventor's patent describes intramuscular injection. No route has been studied for absorption in a person. |
| Half-life | Never measured. No pharmacokinetic study of this sequence has been published in any species, so nothing is known about how long it persists or where it goes. | Never measured in any species. It resists intestinal peptidases in a test tube for hours, which is a stability finding, not a pharmacokinetic one. |
| Sequence length | 3 residues | 4 residues |
| Molecular weight | 333.3 Da | 461.5 Da |
| Studied in | Cell culture almost exclusively: human mesenchymal stem cells and chondrocytes in replicative-ageing models, human and rat skin fibroblasts, and human periodontal ligament stem cells. One rat study of cisplatin kidney injury included it among several peptides. No human study of any design has been published or registered. | Rat hepatocyte cultures, liver explants and an organotypic liver culture; two weeks of oral dosing in young and old rats; carbon tetrachloride hepatitis and a transplanted hepatoma in rats, reported only in the patent; cultured lymphocytes from elderly donors and from cardiomyopathy and breast cancer patients; and one 23-patient open comparison in chronic hepatitis, also patent-only. |
| Who should avoid it |
|
|
| Legal status | Cartalax has no marketing authorisation in the United States, the European Union or the United Kingdom, and is not a licensed medicine in any of them. It is not a controlled substance. In Russia it is marketed as a capsule food supplement rather than as a registered medicine, and the originating group's own review of this peptide family flags only one member as a medicinal product, which is not this one. There is no FDA substance-registry record for it at all, while its close relative Epitalon has one. It is not named on the WADA Prohibited List, but its clause for agents with no approval from any health authority reaches it. | Livagen has no marketing authorisation in the United States, the European Union or the United Kingdom, and no licence as a medicine anywhere we could find. It is not a controlled substance. Its inventor's institute patented it in the United States in 2006 (US 7,101,854) on a Russian filing of 2000; the patent lapsed in 2014 for non-payment, so nothing stops anyone synthesising it. In Russia the group's commercial liver product is the calf-liver complex sold as Ventvil, not this peptide. It is not on the WADA Prohibited List, but the clause for substances with no approval from any health authority reaches it. |
Benefits — Cartalax
- Chondrogenic markers in ageing human stem cells
In human mesenchymal stem cells taken through replicative ageing, the peptide was reported to raise gene expression and protein synthesis of SOX9, aggrecan, type II collagen and COMP. These are the markers a cell moving toward a cartilage phenotype should show, measured in culture rather than in cartilage.
- Senescence markers normalised in cultured chondrocytes
In a model of the senescence-associated secretory phenotype of chondrocytes, it was reported to reduce p16, p21, p53, tumour necrosis factor alpha and interleukin-1 alpha and to restore sirtuin-1. The readouts are immunostains of cells in a dish, not joint tissue or joint function.
- Sirtuin and collagen response in ageing fibroblasts
In human skin fibroblasts driven into replicative ageing, it raised sirtuin-1, sirtuin-6 and collagen I staining, in a comparison against a second short peptide that moved inflammatory markers instead. It is the most direct evidence that the sequence does something to a human cell.
- One whole-animal signal, in kidneys rather than joints
In rats with cisplatin-induced acute renal failure it reduced urinary protein and electrolyte excretion, though a different short peptide in the same experiment carried the protective effect. It is the only in-vivo result of note, and it has nothing to do with cartilage.
Benefits — Livagen
- Protein synthesis restored in hepatocytes from old rats
In monolayer cultures of hepatocytes from rats aged one to twenty-four months, the peptide raised protein synthesis at every age, most of all in cells from the oldest animals, and increased the amplitude of the hour-scale rhythm of synthesis that flattens with age. Epitalon in the same assay changed nothing, which is the best evidence that the effect is sequence-specific.
- Chromatin loosened in blood cells from people in their eighties
Lymphocytes taken from donors aged 75 to 88 and cultured with the peptide showed activation of ribosomal genes, decondensation of densely packed heterochromatin and release of genes silenced by age-related compaction, selectively on chromosomes 1 and 9. It is a reproducible readout from one laboratory, in cells in a dish; no one has shown it happens in a living person or that it would be desirable if it did.
- One open comparison in chronic hepatitis, published only in a patent
The inventor's US patent describes 23 adults with chronic persistent hepatitis given the peptide by daily intramuscular injection for ten to forty days. Mean bilirubin and ALT fell modestly, AST, GGT and lipids did not change, and most patients reported less weakness. A control group of twelve on conventional care is mentioned, but its results are never reported, and no journal version of the study exists.
- Survives gut peptidases and shifted digestive enzymes in old rats
Small-intestine peptide hydrolases barely cleave it in a tube, which is unusual for a short peptide. After two weeks by mouth, digestive enzyme activity fell in young rats and rose in old ones toward the young-control level. Resistance to digestion is not the same as absorption, and nothing shows the intact peptide reaching the liver by this route.
- Liver protection and a smaller tumour in rats, by the inventor's account
The patent and the group's own review report that in rats with carbon tetrachloride hepatitis it normalised bilirubin, transaminases and liver glycogen, and that in rats carrying a transplanted hepatoma the tumour was smaller at a month with a tendency toward longer survival. None of this has been published outside the group, and a patent is an advocacy document.
Risks & cons — Cartalax
- No human data of any kind
Nothing has been measured in a person: no absorption study, no tolerability study, no efficacy trial, no imaging of a joint. A registry search returns no study of this compound under any of its names. Everything claimed for it in people is extrapolation from cultured cells.
- Unapproved grey-market material of unverifiable identity
It is not an approved medicine anywhere, and the injectable powder circulates under research-use-only labelling with no oversight of identity, purity, sterility or endotoxin. A three-residue peptide is cheap to fake and impossible to tell apart from filler by eye.
- The entire evidence base comes from one research group
Almost every paper on this sequence lists the same St Petersburg institute, and the one study run in a laboratory outside Russia carries the same two Russian authors. No independent group has reproduced any of it, which is a different and weaker position than simply being untested.
- Delaying real osteoarthritis care
Osteoarthritis has treatments with actual trial evidence behind them, including exercise therapy, weight management, established analgesia and, at the end of the road, joint replacement. Substituting an untested peptide for assessment of a painful joint is the practical harm most likely to occur here.
- Gene-expression effects are not benign by default
The reported actions include raising IGF1, NF-kappa-B and a tankyrase gene tied to telomere maintenance, and altering sirtuins and p53. Those are growth, inflammation and senescence pathways. Nobody has looked at what sustained exposure does, and the oncologic question has not been asked at all.
Risks & cons — Livagen
- The human record is one patent example that cannot be examined
No trial of this peptide has been published in a journal or registered anywhere. The only account of people receiving it is an example in its inventor's patent: twenty-three patients, no reported control results, no randomisation or blinding, modest changes in two lab values. Everything else claimed for it in people is extrapolation from rat liver cells and cultured blood cells.
- Unapproved grey-market material of unverifiable identity
It is not an approved medicine anywhere and circulates under research-use-only labelling with no oversight of identity, purity, sterility or endotoxin. Listings for it have given the wrong sequence, the wrong source organ and a molecular weight that matches no form of the molecule, which says something about how carefully it is handled.
- The evidence base traces to one programme
The chemistry, the patent, the rat and hepatocyte work and the 2020 review all come from the St Petersburg Institute of Bioregulation and Gerontology. The chromatin work comes from a genetics department in Tbilisi that began as that institute's collaborator and works with peptides it supplied. No group outside that circle has published on the sequence, which is a weaker position than merely being untested.
- Delaying real liver care
Fatty liver disease, viral hepatitis and alcohol-related liver disease all have assessment pathways and treatments with trial evidence behind them, and several are silent until late. Taking an untested peptide for 'liver support' instead of having abnormal liver tests, jaundice or heavy drinking assessed is the practical harm most likely to occur here.
- Gene-activation effects are not benign by default
The reported actions are activation of ribosomal genes and unpacking of silenced chromatin in blood cells, plus faster growth of liver explants. A smaller tumour in one rat experiment reported by the inventor does not settle what sustained chromatin activation does over years. The oncologic question has not been asked in a person.
A comparison is not a recommendation. Neither column is being suggested for you. Which — if either — is appropriate depends on your diagnosis, history and medications, and that is a conversation for a qualified clinician.