compound
Acetyl octapeptide-3
An eight amino acid extension of a six amino acid peptide, sold on the claim that the two extra residues make it work better. What a registry sweep and a PubMed search return for it, and what the parent's record shows instead.
- Primary sources Registry records and papers are read at the source, not through summaries. Read the methodology
- Every claim graded Each claim about what a compound does carries an evidence tier and a numbered citation. How grades derive
- Sells nothing No cart, no price, and no product page anywhere on this site. Conflict disclosure
- Corrections logged Errors are fixed and recorded in a permanent public log, never edited away. Corrections log
This ingredient is sold as an upgrade. Same mechanism as the six amino acid peptide it extends, two more amino acids, better results. That is the entire proposition, and it is the reason people search the name.
A registry sweep on 23 August 2026 covering the INCI name, the alternative octapeptide name and the trade name returned no registered trial of any kind, in any country, at any phase. A PubMed search returns two records, and in both of them the peptide arrived inside a mixture of four or five actives delivered through a patch of needles that punctures the skin.
So the useful page here is not a summary of this ingredient's evidence, because there is none to summarise. It is a page about where the upgrade claim comes from and what the parent ingredient's own record shows, since every argument made for this one is inherited from that one.
| Property | Value | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Category | Listed cosmetic ingredient, lawfully sold and lawfully advertised on appearance | 21 USC 321 |
| Also known as | SNAP-8. The trailing 3 belongs to the octapeptide series and is unrelated to the 3 in the older name of the peptide it extends | The naming traps in full |
| Registered human trials | None. A sweep on 23 August 2026 covering the INCI name, acetyl octapeptide-8 and the trade name returned no record at any phase, in any country | ClinicalTrials.gov, read 23 August 2026 |
| Published studies | Two, and neither tests the peptide on its own. Both are multi-ingredient dissolving microneedle patches, and one of the two has no placebo arm | PubMed, searched 23 August 2026 |
| Head-to-head against the peptide it extends | None published, in any design, in any species | The comparison, and what it rests on |
| Industry safety assessment | None found in PubMed, against a 2025 assessment that exists for the six amino acid peptide it extends | The acetyl hexapeptide-8 record |
Not medical advice
This page reports what has been documented about a compound. It is not medical advice, not a diagnosis, not a dosing protocol, and not a recommendation to obtain or use anything described here. Talk to a licensed clinician about anything concerning your health. Read the full disclaimer.
Reviewed against editorial standards Updated
Key takeaways
- A registry sweep covering acetyl octapeptide-3, acetyl octapeptide-8 and the trade name returned no registered study at any phase, in any country, for any purpose. The clinical record is empty.
- A PubMed search returns two records for this INCI name, and the count has not moved between two searches three weeks apart. Both are studies of dissolving microneedle patches carrying four or five active ingredients at once. [Anecdote] [9]
- Neither published study can attribute anything to this peptide. In the first, the comparator patch differs by three ingredients. In the second there is no comparator at all. [Anecdote] [1] [2]
- No study of any design ranks this peptide against the one it extends. Every comparative potency statement in circulation traces to supplier material that has not been published, and the class reviews describe the shared mechanism without resolving the ranking. [Anecdote] [9] [7]
- The delivery method in both published studies is a patch of needles that punctures the outer layer of skin. That barrier is the whole difficulty this class of ingredient has, so a result obtained through it does not carry across to a cream.
- The parent peptide's own delivery record is the closest thing to relevant evidence. A US Food and Drug Administration laboratory applied that molecule at 10 per cent to human skin and found none of it in the dermis. This peptide is larger, and size is the stated reason the smaller one struggles. [In-vitro] [5] [3] [4]
- REGISTERED HUMAN TRIALS
- 0
- PUBLISHED STUDIES TESTING IT ALONE
- 0
- NUMBERED SOURCES
- 13
- EVIDENCE GRADE
- D
Who researches Acetyl octapeptide-3?
Almost everyone arriving here has already read that this ingredient is the stronger one and wants to know by how much.
The answer is that no published study says, because no published study has compared them, and because no published study has tested this peptide on its own in any design. The sections below set out what does exist and where the comparison came from.
What is Acetyl octapeptide-3?
Plain-English version: an eight amino acid peptide built by extending the six amino acid sequence of acetyl hexapeptide-8, formulated into a cream or a serum.
A nerve ending releases its signal by assembling a protein complex called SNARE, and one of the three proteins in that complex is SNAP-25. The six amino acid peptide this one extends is a copy of six residues from one end of SNAP-25, and the design idea is that the copy competes with the real protein.
This ingredient is a copy of eight residues from the same region. The reasoning offered for it follows directly: a longer copy resembles the real protein more closely, so it should compete better [7].
That reasoning is plausible and it is not evidence. Whether a longer peptide competes better in a preparation is a question a laboratory can answer, and whether it matters through skin is a different question again, because a larger and more water-loving molecule crosses a lipid barrier less easily than a smaller one [4]. Neither question has been answered for this ingredient in anything this site could find.
The abbreviation causes its own trouble. It resembles the name of SNAP-25, the protein the mechanism story is about, and the two are run together constantly in casual writing. They are not the same thing: one is a human protein of 25 kilodaltons, the other is a trade name.
An eight amino acid extension of the Ac-EEMQRR-NH2 sequence. This site has not verified the full sequence against a primary chemical reference and does not state one · Not stated here. No primary source for it was read for this page
How strong is the evidence, claim by claim?
Every claim area this compound is discussed for gets a row, including the ones with the weakest support. The tier records what the row rests on, and the last column states what that work can and cannot show. Each tier links to its definition on the methodology page.
| Evidence Area | What Has Been Studied | Evidence Level | What It Can and Cannot Show |
|---|---|---|---|
| The claim that this peptide outperforms the one it extends | The reason most readers arrive. The claim is that eight residues compete with SNAP-25 better than six do, and therefore that this ingredient does more in a finished product [9] [7] | [Anecdote] | No study of any design compares the two, in any species, at any concentration. Every comparative statement in circulation traces to supplier material that has not been published, so there is nothing for a reader to check. The class reviews describe the shared mechanism and do not rank the members of it |
| What the published record contains for this ingredient | A PubMed search for the INCI name returns two records, and the count is unchanged between searches on 2 August 2026 and 23 August 2026. A registry sweep covering the INCI name, acetyl octapeptide-8 and the trade name returns nothing at all [9] [1] [2] | [Anecdote] | Neither published record tests the peptide on its own. The first is a 24-subject evaluation of a dissolving microneedle patch carrying hyaluronic acid, this peptide, an ascorbic acid derivative and a lysophosphatidic acid salt, against a hyaluronic-acid-only patch on the other eye, so the comparator differs by three ingredients. The second is a 12-week study of a patch carrying five actives with no comparator arm at all |
| The mechanism given for this ingredient | The account offered is the one belonging to the peptide this ingredient extends: competition with SNAP-25 during assembly of the SNARE complex, slowing the release of the signal a nerve ending sends a muscle. The founding work on the six amino acid version reports that inhibition in a laboratory preparation [7] [6] | [Anecdote] | No published study measures this peptide doing it. The account is inherited from a different molecule on the strength of a shared sequence, and a longer peptide is a different molecule with different behaviour, which is the whole basis of the potency claim in the row above. Nothing establishes the mechanism for this ingredient specifically |
| Whether this peptide crosses skin from a topical formulation | The question the whole category turns on, since a mechanism at a nerve ending requires the molecule to reach one. Nothing measuring it for this peptide was found in PubMed or in the registry [9] [3] [4] | [Anecdote] | What exists is about the class and about the peptide this one extends. A 2025 review of the six amino acid version concludes that low skin penetration limits its bioavailability and that whether it reaches neuromuscular junctions remains uncertain. A 2022 review of anti-wrinkle peptides generally concludes that most are not appropriate candidates for skin permeation without an enhancement method. Neither is a measurement of this ingredient |
Rolled up, that puts Acetyl octapeptide-3 at evidence grade D Animals and anecdote . No completed human study of this compound for any use. The claim set is animal, in-vitro, and anecdote. A grade describes the quality of the research, not whether something works and not whether anyone should use it. The derivation is published.
How Acetyl octapeptide-3 is thought to work
Writing this section means describing an account rather than a finding, because no published study measures this peptide acting on anything.
1. The account, and whose molecule it belongs to, the mechanism story is borrowed from the shorter peptide, on the strength of a shared sequence (not measured for this ingredient)
A nerve ending assembles the SNARE complex to empty a vesicle of signalling chemical toward a muscle. SNAP-25 is one of the three proteins in that complex. The six amino acid peptide this ingredient extends copies six residues from one end of SNAP-25, and the 2002 paper on that molecule reports inhibition of neurotransmitter release in a laboratory preparation.
This ingredient copies eight residues from the same region, and the same account is offered for it. What is missing is any measurement of this peptide inhibiting anything, in any preparation, in any published work found for this page.
That gap is worth stating plainly rather than treating as a technicality. The reason to prefer the longer peptide is that its behaviour differs from the shorter one's. A reader is being asked to accept the mechanism as identical and the performance as better, from the same sequence difference, with no measurement of either. [Anecdote] [7] [6] [9]
2. The size argument, which points the other way, the reason the shorter peptide struggles to cross skin applies more strongly to a longer one (established for the class, not measured for this ingredient)
The outer layer of skin is a lipid barrier, and it is built to keep water-soluble molecules out. Reviews of this class give molecular size and water-loving character as the two properties that make anti-wrinkle peptides difficult to deliver, and a 2025 review of the six amino acid version reaches that conclusion for that molecule specifically.
The measurement behind those reviews is worth reading on the parent's page rather than summarised here. An FDA laboratory applied the six amino acid peptide at 10 per cent to human skin and detected none of it in the dermis.
An eight amino acid peptide is larger than a six amino acid one. That does not establish that it crosses skin less well, because formulation changes delivery and nobody has measured either molecule against the other. What it does mean is that the property being sold as an advantage sits on the wrong side of the one difficulty the category has. [In-vitro] [3] [4] [5]
What we do not know
Whether this peptide inhibits neurotransmitter release at all. No published measurement of it was found.
Whether it crosses skin, at any concentration, in any formulation. No published measurement of it was found.
How it compares with the peptide it extends. No head-to-head study exists in any design.
Whether any safety assessment of it has been published. A PubMed search found none, and the absence of a search hit is not proof that none exists.
Its molecular weight and full sequence, neither of which this site verified against a primary chemical reference.
What this evidence can and cannot show
These results come from None for this peptide. The work described below was done on the six amino acid peptide it extends, in laboratory preparations and in excised skin. in Neurotransmitter release assays and diffusion cells, all of them measuring a different molecule., not from people. An animal model is a deliberate simplification: the injury is created on purpose, the animal is young and healthy, the dose is scaled to body weight in a way that does not translate directly, and the outcome is measured at a fixed point rather than lived with. Cell and tissue work is a further step removed, because the concentrations that produce an effect in a dish are often far above anything a body reaches. Mechanism is a reason to run a trial. It is not a substitute for one, and compounds that looked mechanistically convincing have failed in people many times.
Has Acetyl octapeptide-3 been tested in humans?
There is no registered trial of this ingredient. The two published studies below are here because they are what a search returns, and because what is wrong with each of them as evidence is the same thing in both cases.
| Study | People | What was done | Result | Evidence level |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dissolving microneedle patch (PMID 39082657) | 24 | A patch carrying hyaluronic acid, this peptide, an ascorbic acid derivative and a lysophosphatidic acid salt, applied overnight, against a hyaluronic-acid-only patch on the other eye, assessed over 28 days | The comparator differs by three ingredients, so nothing separates to this peptide. Delivery punctures the skin barrier | [Anecdote] |
| Hyaluronic acid microneedle patch (PMID 31134751) | Not stated in the abstract | A 12-week single-centre study of patches carrying an arginine and lysine polypeptide, this peptide, palmitoyl tripeptide-5, adenosine and seaweed extracts | No comparator arm at all. Five actives delivered together, and the paper's own conclusion describes them as possibly acting together | [Anecdote] |
| Any study of this peptide on its own | None | No registered trial under the INCI name, acetyl octapeptide-8 or the trade name, and no published study isolating it | This is the finding rather than a gap in the research behind this page | [Anecdote] |
Why we are not calling this proof
A study of a mixture is not a study of an ingredient. Both published records deliver four or five actives at once, and in one of them there is no comparator to separate anything against.
A microneedle patch punctures the outer layer of skin. That barrier is the entire delivery difficulty for peptides applied to skin, so a result obtained through it says nothing about the same ingredient in a cream.
Evidence about the peptide this one extends is not evidence about this one. That distinction runs through this site, and it applies here in the direction readers least expect: the parent has the registered trials and the extension is the one sold as stronger.
Benefits: what the research shows
The matrix above holds each claim and what sits behind it. This section is the shape of the record rather than a second pass over the rows.
The honest bottom line on benefits
Nothing published tests this ingredient on its own, so nothing published establishes what it does. That is a statement about the record and not about the molecule: an untested ingredient has not been shown to do nothing, it has not been examined.
What can be said is where the confidence around it comes from. The mechanism is borrowed from a shorter peptide, and the ranking against that peptide comes from material nobody outside the supply chain can read. Both of those are checkable facts about the state of the evidence, and both are the kind of thing a reader can only find by looking.
The parent ingredient's record is the useful comparison, and it cuts against the marketing rather than for it. That molecule has six registered trials and an FDA measurement of how far it reaches into skin, and the measurement found none of it below the epidermis. This one is larger.
How long Acetyl octapeptide-3 stays in the body
There is no absorption figure, no penetration measurement and no exposure figure for this peptide, in a person or in excised skin, because no study measuring any of them was found in PubMed or the registry.
The class literature is the only thing standing in that space, and it is about other molecules. Reviews of anti-wrinkle peptides conclude that most of them are not good candidates for crossing skin without an enhancement method, and both published studies naming this peptide used exactly such a method: needles.
No pharmacokinetic or delivery measurement of this ingredient was found. [Anecdote] [9] [4]
What is documented about dosing
Nothing here is a use instruction. Statements about concentrations reflect what published studies of mixtures reported and nothing else.
Commonly cited protocols (extrapolated, not validated)
Nothing here is a dosing recommendation. Statements about dosing reflect community and research reports only.
| Study | What was given | Frequency | Duration | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Any study of this peptide alone | Nothing documented | Nothing documented | Nothing documented | No such study was found in PubMed or the registry |
| The two microneedle patch studies | Not stated for this peptide in either abstract | Overnight in one, weekly application over 12 weeks in the other | 28 days and 12 weeks | Four or five actives per patch, so no figure is attributable to this ingredient |
| Any human use | Nothing documented | Nothing documented | Nothing documented | No registered study of this ingredient exists |
Figures circulate for this ingredient in finished products. They come from suppliers and from product marketing rather than from a study, and this site does not reproduce them as guidance.
The reason there is nothing to reproduce is worth stating rather than working around. A concentration is only informative alongside a result, and no result attributable to this ingredient has been published.
Nothing here is a use instruction. Talk to a licensed clinician about anything concerning your health.
Main routes people compare, and what each source class actually reported, are set out on the documented protocols page.
Reported effects and what has been measured
What has been assessed
A PubMed search found no published safety assessment of this ingredient. The absence of a search hit is not proof that no assessment exists, and this page states what was searched rather than what is true of the world.
For contrast rather than for reassurance: the six amino acid peptide this one extends has a 2025 assessment from the Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety, which reached a conclusion of safety in cosmetics bounded at concentrations up to 0.005 per cent and stated that available data are insufficient to reach that conclusion above it.
This site does not describe any compound as safe. Nothing in this section is a statement about whether this ingredient is. [Anecdote] [9] [8]
What the published studies report
Both microneedle patch studies report that their products were tolerated without adverse effects over their study periods, at 28 days and 12 weeks.
Those observations belong to the finished patches, which each carried four or five active ingredients and a hyaluronic acid backbone. Nothing in either is attributable to this peptide, in either direction. [Anecdote] [1] [2]
What has been measured about Acetyl octapeptide-3, and what has never been studied
Talk to a licensed clinician about anything concerning your health.
Sourcing and quality
What a credible product should show
This ingredient has an INCI name, so a finished cosmetic sold in the United States has to declare it on the label. That declaration is a legal statement about identity, and it is more than most compounds on this site can offer.
What the declaration does not carry is an amount. US cosmetic labelling requires ingredients in descending order of predominance rather than by quantity.
Under the subchapter added by the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, a responsible person must register the facility, list the product, hold safety substantiation records and report serious adverse events. None of that reviews whether an ingredient works.
Red flags
A potency ranking against the six amino acid peptide, in any form and by any margin. No study of any design has compared them.
A trial count for this ingredient. There is no registered study of it under any of its names.
The two microneedle patch studies cited as evidence for it. Each delivered four or five actives at once, one of them had no comparator, and both punctured the skin barrier the question is about.
The parent peptide's trials or reviews presented as this ingredient's record. They belong to a different molecule.
Any claim that the ingredient relaxes a muscle or blocks a nerve signal. That describes a function of the body, which is a drug claim about a product sold as a cosmetic.
Will it show on a drug test?
This site has not established a position for this ingredient on any anti-doping prohibited list and does not state one. It is a cosmetic applied to the surface of the skin.
An athlete with a question about any product should take it to the relevant anti-doping authority rather than to a page.
Storage
No storage guidance is given here. A finished cosmetic carries its own, and no stability work on this peptide was found for this page.
Regulatory status, as of 23 August 2026
| Body | Position | Date | Document |
|---|---|---|---|
| FDA | A listed cosmetic ingredient. No pre-market approval of a cosmetic ingredient exists and none is required | Checked 23 August 2026 | 21 USC 321 and subchapter VI of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act |
| US Congress | The Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 added facility registration, product listing, safety substantiation records and serious adverse event reporting. It added no efficacy requirement | Enacted 29 December 2022 | Public Law 117-328, division FF, title III, subtitle E |
| FDA | Cosmetic labelling requirements, including the declaration of ingredients in descending order of predominance | Checked 23 August 2026 | 21 CFR part 701 |
| Expert Panel for Cosmetic Ingredient Safety | No published assessment of this ingredient was found in PubMed. An assessment of the six amino acid peptide it extends was published in 2025 | Searched 23 August 2026 | PubMed |
| ClinicalTrials.gov | No registration at any phase under acetyl octapeptide-3, acetyl octapeptide-8 or the trade name | Swept 23 August 2026 | ClinicalTrials.gov v2 API |
This ingredient is lawful to sell and lawful to advertise on appearance, and nothing about its empty trial record changes that. Cosmetics law asks for safety records and honest labelling, not for evidence of effect.
The line worth knowing is the one between a cosmetic claim and a drug claim. A cosmetic is a product intended to affect appearance. A product intended to affect the structure or a function of the body is a drug. A claim about how skin looks is a cosmetic claim; a claim about interfering with the signal a nerve sends a muscle describes a function of the body.
That is the awkward position this ingredient occupies. Its entire selling proposition is a mechanism, and the mechanism is the part that cannot lawfully appear as a claim on the product, so it lives in the material around the product instead.
This section is dated and re-checked on review. It records documents and their dates, not evidence about an effect, and carries no evidence tier for that reason.
Acetyl octapeptide-3 compared with other cosmetic peptides
| Compound | Evidence grade | What the human record covers | Read more |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acetyl hexapeptide-8 | Graded on its own page | The six amino acid peptide this one extends. Six registered trials, two with posted results, an FDA measurement of skin penetration and a 2025 industry safety assessment | /peptides/argireline/ |
| Palmitoyl pentapeptide-4 | Graded on the cosmetic group page | A different mechanism: a collagen fragment sold as a signal rather than as a blocker, resting on one manufacturer-authored trial | /peptides/groups/cosmetic/#matrixyl |
| Pentapeptide-3 | Graded on the cosmetic group page | Sold on the same muscle-relaxing reasoning. A PubMed search returns no study of it | /peptides/groups/cosmetic/#vialox |
One comparison matters here and it is with the peptide this ingredient extends, because every argument made for this one is an argument about that one plus two amino acids.
The comparison has its own page, and the naming alone justifies it: this ingredient's INCI name ends in a 3, the peptide it extends was formerly named with a 3, and the two numbers belong to unrelated series.
What Acetyl octapeptide-3 typically costs
Frequently asked questions
Is acetyl octapeptide-3 the same as SNAP-8?
Yes. SNAP-8 is a trade name and acetyl octapeptide-3 is the INCI name that appears on a label.
Has it been tested in humans?
Not on its own. A registry sweep on 23 August 2026 covering acetyl octapeptide-3, acetyl octapeptide-8 and the trade name returned no record at any phase in any country, and the two published studies naming it both delivered it inside a mixture of four or five actives.
Is it stronger than the six amino acid peptide it extends?
No published study compares them, in any design or any species. Every comparative statement in circulation traces to supplier material that has not been published.
What do the two published studies show?
Each reports results for a dissolving microneedle patch. In the first, the comparator patch differed by three ingredients; in the second there was no comparator arm. Neither can attribute a result to this peptide.
Do the microneedle results say anything about a cream?
They answer a different question. A microneedle patch punctures the outer layer of skin, which is the barrier that makes topical delivery of these peptides difficult in the first place.
Does the trailing 3 mean it is related to acetyl hexapeptide-3?
No. Octapeptides and hexapeptides are separate INCI families, numbered within each. The two numbers are unrelated, and this is one of the most common confusions in the category.
Is it the same as SNAP-25?
No. SNAP-25 is a human protein inside the complex a nerve ending assembles to release its signal. This ingredient is a short synthetic peptide copying part of it, and the similar abbreviation is a coincidence of naming.
Is there a safety assessment for it?
None was found in PubMed. That is a statement about a search rather than proof that none exists. An assessment of the six amino acid peptide it extends was published in 2025.
Is it legal to sell in the United States?
Yes. It is a listed cosmetic ingredient, and a product containing it may be sold provided the responsible person registers the facility, lists the product, holds safety substantiation records and reports serious adverse events. Nothing in that requires evidence of effect.
Why does this page exist if there is no evidence?
Because the absence is the finding, and because a reader searching this ingredient will otherwise meet the potency claim with nothing beside it. Establishing that no registered trial and no standalone study exists took a registry sweep and a PubMed search, and both are recorded here so anyone can repeat them.
References
- Shin JY, Han D, Yoon KY, Jeong DH, Park YI. Clinical Safety and Efficacy Evaluation of a Dissolving Microneedle Patch Having Dual Anti-Wrinkle Effects With Safe and Long-Term Activities. Ann Dermatol. 2024. PMID 39082657 DOI 10.5021/ad.23.136
- Avcil M, Akman G, Klokkers J, Jeong D, Çelik A. Efficacy of bioactive peptides loaded on hyaluronic acid microneedle patches: A monocentric clinical study. J Cosmet Dermatol. 2020. PMID 31134751 DOI 10.1111/jocd.13009
- Zdrada-Nowak J, Surgiel-Gemza A, Szatkowska M. Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 in Cosmeceuticals-A Review of Skin Permeability and Efficacy. Int J Mol Sci. 2025. PMID 40565185 DOI 10.3390/ijms26125722
- Mortazavi SM, Moghimi HR. Skin permeability, a dismissed necessity for anti-wrinkle peptide performance. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2022. PMID 35302659 DOI 10.1111/ics.12770
- Kraeling ME, Zhou W, Wang P, Ogunsola OA. In vitro skin penetration of acetyl hexapeptide-8 from a cosmetic formulation. Cutan Ocul Toxicol. 2015. PMID 24754410 DOI 10.3109/15569527.2014.894521
- Blanes-Mira C, Clemente J, Jodas G, Gil A, Fernández-Ballester G, Ponsati B, Gutierrez L, Pérez-Payá E, Ferrer-Montiel A. A synthetic hexapeptide (Argireline) with antiwrinkle activity. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2002. PMID 18498523 DOI 10.1046/j.1467-2494.2002.00153.x
- Skibska A, Perlikowska R. Signal Peptides - Promising Ingredients in Cosmetics. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2021. PMID 34382523 DOI 10.2174/1389203722666210812121129
- Johnson W Jr, Bergfeld WF, Belsito DV, Cohen DE, Klaassen CD, Liebler DC, Marks JG Jr, Peterson LA, Shank RC, Slaga TJ, Snyder PW, Fiume M, Heldreth B. Safety Assessment of Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 Amide as Used in Cosmetics. Int J Toxicol. 2025. PMID 40673537 DOI 10.1177/10915818251340391
- US National Library of Medicine. PubMed, searched for the term acetyl octapeptide-3 on 23 August 2026, repeating a search first run on 2 August 2026. Both returned the same two records, PMID 39082657 and PMID 31134751, each a study of a multi-ingredient microneedle patch. No record testing the peptide on its own was returned. Searches for acetyl octapeptide and for a Cosmetic Ingredient Review safety assessment of the octapeptide returned no record of either. PubMed. 2026. Source document
- ClinicalTrials.gov. Registry sweep for acetyl octapeptide-3, acetyl octapeptide-8 and SNAP-8 peptide, run through the v2 API on 23 August 2026. Each of the three queries returned no record, at any phase, in any country. The same sweep returned six records for acetyl hexapeptide-8, which are covered on that compound's page. ClinicalTrials.gov. 2026. ClinicalTrials.gov
- United States Congress. Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328, enacted 29 December 2022. Division FF, title III, subtitle E is the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022, which adds subchapter VI of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. govinfo. 2022. Source document
- Office of the Law Revision Counsel, United States House of Representatives. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, title 21 of the United States Code: section 321 for the definitions of drug and cosmetic, and subchapter VI sections 364 to 364d for cosmetic definitions, adverse events, registration and product listing, and safety substantiation. Checked 23 August 2026. United States Code. 2026. Source document
- Office of the Federal Register and Government Publishing Office. Cosmetic labeling, title 21 of the Code of Federal Regulations, part 701. Checked 23 August 2026. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. 2026. Source document