About this GHK-Cu research notebook

What this notebook is

Prescribed GHK-Cu is an independent editorial project that publishes summaries of the peer-reviewed research literature on GHK-Cu, the copper(II) chelate of glycyl-histidyl-lysine. We are not a clinic. We do not employ clinicians and we do not provide medical advice. We do not manufacture, sell, or distribute any product. Our work is editorial commentary on publicly available science.

The site is built like a hand-bound study journal: each finding is treated as a clipping pasted onto the page and annotated, with the strongest results set down plainly and the gaps in the evidence left visible in the margin. Every quantitative claim — every dose, percentage, gene count and stability constant — is tied to a numbered citation that resolves to a PubMed, PMC or DOI record on the references page.

What "prescribed" means here

The word "prescribed" in this site's name is editorial framing, not a service. It signals the hand-written, annotated register of a curator's reading — what the literature actually records, marked up by hand like a remedy noted in a personal notebook — not a pharmacy, a checkout, or a prescription. This site dispenses nothing and prescribes nothing. It does not offer treatment, consultation, or any clinical service, and it takes no position on whether anyone should use the compound.

GHK-Cu sits in a specific regulatory place, and the notebook keeps it explicit: topical Copper Tripeptide-1 is a legal cosmetic ingredient in the US, EU and UK, while injectable or systemic GHK-Cu is an unapproved research chemical with no established regulatory pathway ^[3]. There is no FDA- or EMA-approved therapeutic GHK-Cu product for any indication.

How the clippings were chosen

The studies summarized here were selected for being citable and verifiable: peer-reviewed primary research and reviews, indexed in PubMed or PubMed Central, with a DOI. The notebook leans on the foundational collagen and tissue-remodeling work ^[1][6], the genome-wide gene-modulation analysis ^[2], the canonical skin-regeneration review ^[3], the controlled hair-count trial ^[4], and the recent 2024–2025 colitis, neuroprotection and anti-wrinkle-delivery studies ^[13][14][15]. Where a finding rests on a single investigator's body of work, or on in-vitro data that has not been validated in vivo, the annotation says so. The aim is a faithful reading of the record, not a sales case for the molecule.