This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What N-Phenylacetyl-L-Prolylglycine Ethyl Ester does in the body
A Russian nootropic, sold in the West as a supplement, at doses often four times the pharmacological one
Noopept was designed as a two-amino-acid version of piracetam, on the theory that a peptide would be more potent. It is more potent — by roughly a thousandfold on a milligram basis — but not in the way intended. After a dose, the compound itself cannot be found in the brain at all. What rises there is cyclo-prolylglycine, a small ring-shaped dipeptide that the brain already produces on its own. So the drug is a delivery vehicle for a naturally occurring molecule. The best current account of what that molecule does is that it blocks an oxygen-sensing enzyme, which lets a transcription factor called HIF-1 survive and switch on the genes cells use to adapt to low oxygen.
What happened in people
Noopept was undetectable in rat brain one hour after 5 mg/kg while cyclo-prolylglycine, an endogenous cyclic dipeptide, rose 2.5-fold
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
Vakhitova YV et al. Molecular mechanism underlying the action of substituted Pro-Gly dipeptide noopept. Acta Naturae 2016;8:82-89 (27099787) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Its recorded molecular formula is C17H22N2O4, weighing 318.4.
PubChem record · 180496 · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
No recorded sentence describes the change this makes in a way that stands on its own. The page opens with what it is taken for instead, and the recorded explanation follows below.
Shown as the opening line on this page.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 157 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Biomarker
A biomarker is a number from a test that stands in for something about health.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A biomarker is like a fuel gauge.
Where that stops being true. A gauge is wired to the tank. Many biomarkers are only loosely tied to health.
What people get wrong. A better number is read as a better life. Several medicines improved a number and helped nobody.
A measurable indicator used as a substitute for a clinical outcome of interest.
Placebo
A placebo is a dummy treatment given so the real one can be compared with it.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
A placebo is like a blank control in an experiment.
Where that stops being true. A blank does nothing. People given a placebo often do get better.
What people get wrong. A placebo effect is read as imaginary. The improvement is measured and real.
An inactive intervention matched in appearance to the test intervention, used to control for non-specific effects.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Cognitive and asthenic symptom measures against an active piracetam comparator
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Neznamov 2009 comparative study of noopept against piracetam
How many people
0
Study design
Comparative clinical study in mild cognitive disorders of vascular and traumatic origin
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Reported as favourable in the source publication. The study is not registered on any trial registry, has no placebo arm, and was conducted at the institute that developed the compound
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. The active comparator, piracetam, is itself unsupported for cognitive impairment by Cochrane review, which limits what a non-inferiority or superiority result against it can establish.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Vakhitova YV et al. Molecular mechanism underlying the action of substituted Pro-Gly dipeptide noopept. Acta Naturae 2016;8:82-89 (27099787) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Parent compound undetectable in brain at one hour; cyclo-prolylglycine increased 2.5-fold; phenylacetic acid and prolylglycine present in treated and control brain without a treatment-related rise
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Vakhitova YV et al. Molecular mechanism underlying the action of substituted Pro-Gly dipeptide noopept. Acta Naturae 2016;8:82-89 (27099787) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
In vitro, HEK293 cells transiently transfected with nine luciferase reporters
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Noopept 10 uM increased HIF-1 DNA-binding activity only, concentration-dependently, with a further increase under CoCl2 stabilisation; piracetam 1 mM affected none of the nine
Repeated elsewhere
Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Vakhitova YV et al. Molecular mechanism underlying the action of substituted Pro-Gly dipeptide noopept. Acta Naturae 2016;8:82-89 (27099787) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Identity and quantity of unapproved drugs including omberacetam in labelled nootropic supplements
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Cohen 2021 supplement content analysis
How many people
10
Study design
Analytical survey of ten products purchased online
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
Maximum 40.6 +/- 0.4 mg omberacetam per recommended serving against a typical pharmacological dose of 10 mg; five unapproved drugs detected across the ten products; 9 of 12 declared quantities inaccurate
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No limitation is recorded for this study.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Vakhitova YV et al. Molecular mechanism underlying the action of substituted Pro-Gly dipeptide noopept. Acta Naturae 2016;8:82-89 (27099787) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
RNAWiki holds 4 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
N-Phenylacetyl-L-Prolylglycine Ethyl Ester
What a person takes: Oral tablet in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere.
The measurement behind this step
A conventional oral tablet where it is a registered medicine, at doses around 10 mg. In markets where it is not registered it is sold as capsules and as bulk powder; the analysed serving sizes bear no reliable relation to the labelled ones, and the same products carried undeclared phenibut, vinpocetine and picamilon.
Getting in
Taken by mouth in milligram doses
The pharmacological dose is around 10 milligrams, roughly a thousandth of a piracetam dose.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Oral administration of the ethyl ester. The gap between this and piracetam gram dosing is the practical evidence that the two act by different mechanisms, whatever the family resemblance in the name.
Vakhitova YV et al. Molecular mechanism underlying the action of substituted Pro-Gly dipeptide noopept. Acta Naturae 2016;8:82-89 (27099787) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Enzymes in blood and brain cut the molecule down; the drug itself never arrives in measurable amounts.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
Plasma and brain enzymes convert noopept to cyclo-prolylglycine. One hour after 5 mg/kg in rats, noopept was undetectable in brain while cyclo-prolylglycine had risen 2.5-fold above the endogenous level present in controls.
Vakhitova YV et al. Molecular mechanism underlying the action of substituted Pro-Gly dipeptide noopept. Acta Naturae 2016;8:82-89 (27099787) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
The proposed target is the enzyme that tags a low-oxygen response protein for destruction. Block it, and that protein survives.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Molecular docking places the L-isomer of noopept and of its N-phenylacetylprolyl metabolite in the active site of prolyl hydroxylase 2, the enzyme that hydroxylates HIF-1 alpha and marks it for degradation. The D-isomer, which is pharmacologically ineffective, does not dock. This is a proposed rather than a demonstrated binding event.
Vakhitova YV et al. Molecular mechanism underlying the action of substituted Pro-Gly dipeptide noopept. Acta Naturae 2016;8:82-89 (27099787) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
The rescued protein turns on the genes cells use to survive low oxygen, and nothing else in the panel moved.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Noopept at 10 micromolar raised HIF-1 DNA-binding activity selectively among nine transcription factors, with an additional concentration-dependent increase under cobalt-chloride-induced stabilisation. In neuronal cell models it reduced reactive oxygen species and intracellular calcium, raised mitochondrial membrane potential, attenuated tau phosphorylation at Ser396 and restored neurite outgrowth after amyloid-beta injury.
Vakhitova YV et al. Molecular mechanism underlying the action of substituted Pro-Gly dipeptide noopept. Acta Naturae 2016;8:82-89 (27099787) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
A specific mechanism, and no controlled human trial
The laboratory story is unusually specific. The human story is one developer-run comparison and a supplement market with unreliable doses.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
The human evidence base consists of comparative studies against piracetam from the institute that developed the compound, unregistered and unreplicated. The measured Western footprint is a supplement in which one serving delivered four times the pharmacological dose, and bulk raw material intercepted at the border.
Vakhitova YV et al. Molecular mechanism underlying the action of substituted Pro-Gly dipeptide noopept. Acta Naturae 2016;8:82-89 (27099787) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
In Russia, patients prescribed it for post-traumatic and vascular cognitive impairment. Elsewhere, people taking capsules sold as nootropic supplements, in which the analysed content did not match the label three-quarters of the time.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
Where the result stopped carrying
No placebo-controlled trial of noopept has been published in an indexed English-language journal or registered on any trial registry
A 2021 primary research paper on noopept in inflammatory pain was retracted three months after publication with no reason given
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Varies by country
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral tablet in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Not usually supervised: sold as a supplement or food ingredient where recorded. That is a legal category, not a safety judgement.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
The identity record classes it as a supplement ingredient; no medicines register records an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
A conventional oral tablet where it is a registered medicine, at doses around 10 mg.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold. The rest of the recorded wording: In markets where it is not registered it is sold as capsules and as bulk powder; the analysed serving sizes bear no reliable relation to the labelled ones, and the same products carried undeclared phenibut, vinpocetine and picamilon.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
No controlled human safety dataset exists outside the Russian registration file. Preclinical work reports that the compound does not stimulate cell proliferation and prevents DNA damage in a prediabetes model, which are reassuring findings in their own terms and are rodent findings. The specific documented hazard is the supplement supply: a product delivering four times the pharmacological dose, potentially alongside three other unapproved drugs, taken without clinician oversight, is a combination nobody has studied.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Vakhitova YV et al. Molecular mechanism underlying the action of substituted Pro-Gly dipeptide noopept. Acta Naturae 2016;8:82-89 (27099787) · a recorded source, not a stored snapshot
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral tablet in the Russian registered product; capsules and bulk powder elsewhere
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
A recorded note compares this form with the others that are sold. It is kept below, word for word.
§ A fixed RNAWiki sentence
Where this came from
Wording RNAWiki always uses, not a finding about this substance.
The recorded note, unchanged: In markets where it is not registered it is sold as capsules and as bulk powder; the analysed serving sizes bear no reliable relation to the labelled ones, and the same products carried undeclared phenibut, vinpocetine and picamilon.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
29 marketed supplement labels list this ingredient, classed as non-nutrient/non-botanical and other combinations.
Those labels carry all other, nutrient and structure/function claims. A claim of that kind is written by the manufacturer and is not assessed by any regulator, so its presence says nothing about whether it is true.
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
Watching one thing carefully can tell you whether it moved. It cannot tell you what moved it.
This is sold without a prescription, so a person can sensibly watch one thing and see whether it moves.
Pick one goal. One goal only. Two at once cannot be told apart afterwards.
Pick one thing to watch. No registered study lists a measure RNAWiki could read for this.
Measure before you start. Take the same measurement several times first. One reading is not a starting point.
Know the swing. Write down how much it moves on its own across a normal week.
Change one thing. Change nothing else at the same time, including training and sleep.
Give it the study length. No finished study window is recorded, so no length is suggested here.
Track whether you took it. Missed days are the most common reason a home test shows nothing.
Read the trend. Look at the line across weeks. A single reading tells you almost nothing.
What not to measure
Anything that swings more day to day than the change you are looking for.
A wearable estimate of sleep stages, which is an estimate and not a measurement.
Weight on one morning, which mostly records water.
A feeling you did not write down before starting.
When to stop
Stop if something new and unpleasant starts, and ask a pharmacist or doctor.
Stop if you cannot keep everything else steady, because the result will not mean anything.
Stop at the end of the window you set, and read the trend then.
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki does not work out an amount for anyone.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That noopept is a more potent piracetam; the administered compound is not detectable in brain and its active species is an endogenous molecule
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That prolyl hydroxylase 2 inhibition is demonstrated, when the binding evidence is molecular docking and the measured effect is downstream transcription factor activity
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That a developer-run comparison against piracetam demonstrates clinical benefit
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That cellular neuroprotection against amyloid-beta injury predicts a cognitive effect in a person, which no controlled trial has tested
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
How much did people take in the studies?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. A result belongs to an amount. Without the amount the result floats free.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
How fast does the body clear it?
The sources RNAWiki checked hold nothing for this field.
Why it matters. Without this, nothing on this page can say how long anything lasts.
What would answer it
A stored source that records it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of N-Phenylacetyl-L-Prolylglycine Ethyl Ester are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
The drug is not in the brain; its endogenous metabolite is
In plain words
An hour after dosing rats, noopept could not be detected in brain at all. What had risen was cyclo-prolylglycine, a cyclic dipeptide the brain makes naturally.
What was measured
That the pharmacology of noopept is the pharmacology of noopept, when the administered compound is undetectable in brain and an endogenous metabolite is what rises
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Gudasheva et al. studied the metabolism of GVS-111 in vivo. The compound itself was not found in rat brain one hour after 5 mg/kg intraperitoneally, down to the limit of detection by HPLC. Three substances corresponding to its possible metabolites — phenylacetic acid, prolylglycine and cyclo-prolylglycine — were found in treated rat brain and in controls by HPLC, gas chromatography and GC-MS, but only cyclo-prolylglycine rose after dosing, by 2.5-fold. Formation of cyclo-prolylglycine from GVS-111 was demonstrated in vitro in the presence of plasma and brain enzymes. The authors conclude the compound is a prodrug converting to cyclo-prolylglycine, which is identical to the endogenous cyclopeptide they propose produces the nootropic activity. That reframes the drug entirely: it is a way of raising a molecule the brain already makes.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
It moved one transcription factor out of nine, and piracetam moved none
In plain words
Tested against nine transcription factors, noopept activated only HIF-1, the master switch for adapting to low oxygen. Piracetam at a hundred times the concentration activated nothing.
What was measured
DNA-binding activity of nine transcription factors in reporter-transfected cells, noopept 10 uM versus piracetam 1 mM
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Vakhitova et al. transfected HEK293 cells with luciferase reporter constructs for CREB, NFAT, NF-kappaB, p53, STAT1, GAS, VDR, HSF1 and HIF-1. Noopept at 10 micromolar increased the DNA-binding activity of HIF-1 only, leaving the other eight unaffected, and produced a further increase under cobalt-chloride-induced HIF-1 stabilisation, in a concentration-dependent manner. Piracetam at 1 millimolar — a hundredfold higher concentration — failed to affect any of the factors significantly. Molecular docking placed the L-isomer of noopept, and the L-isomer of its N-phenylacetylprolyl metabolite but not the pharmacologically ineffective D-isomer, in the active site of prolyl hydroxylase 2, the oxygen-sensing enzyme that marks HIF-1 alpha for degradation. The authors propose the HIF-positive effect as the primary mechanism. A separate group later confirmed HIF-1 activation independently.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A supplement serving delivered four times the pharmacological dose
In plain words
One product tested delivered 40.6 mg of noopept per recommended serving. The typical pharmacological dose is 10 mg.
What was measured
Quantity of omberacetam per recommended serving against the typical pharmacological dose, and label accuracy across ten products
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Cohen et al. bought ten products labelled as containing omberacetam, aniracetam, phenylpiracetam or oxiracetam and analysed them by non-targeted liquid chromatography-quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Omberacetam and aniracetam were detected along with three further unapproved drugs — phenibut, vinpocetine and picamilon. At the recommended serving size, a consumer could be exposed to a maximum of 40.6 +/- 0.4 mg of omberacetam against a typical pharmacological dose of 10 mg, and to as many as four unapproved drugs from a single product. Several detected drugs were not declared on the label and several declared drugs were not detected; of products stating a quantity, 9 of 12 were inaccurate. The authors note that the health effects of consuming untested combinations of unapproved drugs at unpredictable dosages without clinician oversight are unknown.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Imported into Europe as bulk raw material
In plain words
A four-year surveillance study by twelve national medicines laboratories intercepted noopept as large bulk quantities of raw material, mostly from the illegal market.
What was measured
Interception of noopept as bulk raw material within a 159-sample multinational surveillance dataset
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Vanhee et al. document a market surveillance study by the General European Official Medicines Control Laboratory Network with Australia, running from January 2020 to September 2024. Across 159 samples and 166 molecular identification entries, 34 distinct molecules were found. Most samples were presented as dietary supplements (49%) or medicines (32%), and 69% came from the illegal market. Prescription drugs and drugs available only on prescription in Russia were found in pharmacological quantities, and noopept, phenylpiracetam and phenibut specifically were intercepted as large bulk quantities of raw material. The study also identified unauthorised novel foods, prescription-level melatonin and clinically uncharacterised research molecules, and concludes that consumption of some of the reported samples could have detrimental health effects.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The comparative clinical trial was run by the institute that developed it
In plain words
The main human study compared noopept against piracetam in patients with mild cognitive impairment, and was conducted at the institute that invented noopept.
What was measured
That a developer-run comparison against piracetam establishes clinical efficacy, when the comparator itself lacks supported efficacy in the same indication
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Neznamov and Teleshova published comparative studies of noopept and piracetam in patients with mild cognitive disorders in organic brain diseases of vascular and traumatic origin, from the Clinical Psychopharmacology Laboratory of the V. V. Zakusov State Research Institute of Pharmacology, Russian Academy of Medical Sciences — the institute where noopept was designed. The work appeared in Russian in Zhurnal Nevrologii i Psikhiatrii and in English translation in Neuroscience and Behavioral Physiology. It is not registered on any trial registry, has not been independently replicated, and there is no placebo-controlled trial of noopept published in an indexed English-language journal. A comparison against an active control that a Cochrane review found unsupported in cognitive impairment is also a weak comparator choice.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
A noopept paper was retracted three months after publication
In plain words
A 2021 study on noopept and inflammatory pain was withdrawn by the journal within months, with no reason given in the retraction notice.
What was measured
Retraction of a primary research article on noopept, three months after publication, no reason stated
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
Taghizadeh et al. published "Noopept; a nootropic dipeptide, modulates persistent inflammation by effecting spinal microglia dependent brain derived neurotrophic factor and pro-BDNF expression throughout apoptotic process" in Heliyon on 12 February 2021. A retraction notice appeared in the same journal in May 2021, three months later. The notice states only that the article is retracted and gives no reason. This page records the retraction because the preclinical literature on this compound is thin enough that a single withdrawn paper is a material fraction of it, and because a reader searching the compound will find the original article indexed alongside the notice.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
8 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How this medicine reached us — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A dipeptide prodrug that is undetectable in brain after dosing while its endogenous cyclic metabolite rises 2.5-fold, whose proposed mechanism is selective activation of hypoxia-inducible factor 1, and which appeared in a supplement at 40.6 mg against a typical pharmacological dose of 10 mg.
Recorded evidence blocks (0)
Where it is registeredIdentifiers, relations and other names
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 1 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.