This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What SR-9009 does in the body
An “exercise pill” research chemical never tested in a person.
Every cell runs a clock, and REV-ERB is one of its gears. It is a nuclear receptor that switches genes off, including genes controlling how much fat the liver makes and how many mitochondria a muscle keeps. SR9009 was built to switch REV-ERB on harder. In mice this did impressive things: less fat mass, better cholesterol and blood sugar, more mitochondria in muscle, and longer running times — which is where "exercise in a pill" came from. Then a laboratory made mice with both REV-ERB genes deleted and gave their cells SR9009. The cells still responded. Whatever SR9009 is doing, at least some of it is not being done through the receptor the entire story is built on.
What happened in people
It improved running and reduced fat in mice.
✓ Reviewed first-read answer
Where this came from
A person wrote this and a reviewer approved it against this exact record. It carries no effect size.
A reviewer approved this against this record. The reviewed-claim record carrying the exact population and effect size does not exist yet.
No source is stored against this line.
The limit that matters most
It also changed cells engineered without its supposed target, undermining the claimed explanation.
Where it acts
Nucleus of hepatocytes, skeletal myocytes and adipocytes, where REV-ERB acts as a transcriptional repressor
Kind of result
The kind of result is not recorded
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · X5DCA09N30 · read 2026-08-29
The supplement label database classes it as non-nutrient/non-botanical, under the name Stenabolic.
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.
The limit a reviewer approved as the one that matters most here.
The four opening statements run to 137 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.
Circadian behaviour, core clock and metabolic gene expression, energy expenditure, fat mass, plasma lipids and glucose
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Solt 2012 in vivo characterisation in mice
How many people
0
Study design
Preclinical, diet-induced obese and normal mice, intraperitoneal dosing
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Measured performance
What was found
Altered circadian behaviour and hypothalamic clock gene expression; increased energy expenditure; decreased obesity with reduced fat mass and markedly improved dyslipidaemia and hyperglycaemia in diet-induced obese mice
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. Dosing was by injection because of poor oral bioavailability, a limitation that the oral products sold today do not address.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Intraperitoneal injection in the animal literature; oral capsules and liquids sold as research chemicals
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Mitochondrial content and oxidative function in skeletal muscle, and exercise capacity
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Woldt 2013 skeletal muscle and exercise capacity study
How many people
0
Study design
Preclinical, genetic and pharmacological manipulation in mice and muscle cells
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
What a body can do day to day
What was found
Rev-erb-alpha deficiency reduced mitochondrial content and oxidative function and compromised exercise capacity; overexpression or pharmacological activation increased mitochondrial number, respiratory capacity and exercise capacity
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. The pharmacological arm used SR9009, whose effects were later shown to occur in the complete absence of both REV-ERB proteins.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Intraperitoneal injection in the animal literature; oral capsules and liquids sold as research chemicals
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Cell viability, cellular metabolism and gene transcription in response to SR9009 with and without both REV-ERB proteins
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
Dierickx 2019 REV-ERB double-knockout experiment
How many people
0
Study design
Preclinical, conditional Nr1d1 and Nr1d2 deletion in hepatocytes and embryonic stem cells
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
SR9009 decreased cell viability, rewired cellular metabolism and altered gene transcription in cells lacking both REV-ERB alpha and beta; the authors conclude its effects cannot be used solely as a surrogate for REV-ERB activity
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
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. Intraperitoneal injection in the animal literature; oral capsules and liquids sold as research chemicals
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Identity and quantity of active compounds against label
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
Van Wagoner 2017 internet product content analysis
How many people
44
Study design
Analytical, chain-of-custody purchase and assay of 44 products sold as SARMs
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
A number that stands in for health
What was found
52% contained a SARM; 39% contained a different unapproved drug, among them SR9009; 25% contained a substance not on the label; 9% contained no active compound; 41% matched the labelled content
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. Intraperitoneal injection in the animal literature; oral capsules and liquids sold as research chemicals
Interval reported. Not recorded in this summary
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
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
SR-9009
What a person takes: Intraperitoneal injection in the animal literature; oral capsules and liquids sold as research chemicals.
The measurement behind this step
The defining in vivo experiments used twice-daily intraperitoneal injection because SR9009 has poor oral bioavailability and a short half-life. What is sold is an oral capsule or dropper liquid. There is no human pharmacokinetic study for any route, so the relationship between a capsule and any published dose is unknown.
Getting in
Injected in the animal work; swallowed by everyone else
The mouse studies that made its reputation used twice-daily injections because it is poorly absorbed by mouth. It is sold as an oral capsule.
──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
SR9009 has poor oral bioavailability and a short half-life. The in vivo circadian and metabolic work used intraperitoneal administration. No human pharmacokinetic study exists for any route, so the exposure produced by an oral capsule is unknown rather than merely low.
Its intended target sits on the DNA inside the nucleus, so the molecule has to get all the way in.
╌╌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
REV-ERB alpha and beta are nuclear receptors whose natural ligand is haem. They act as constitutive transcriptional repressors, recruiting the NCoR-HDAC3 corepressor complex to REV-ERB response elements in target promoters.
Designed to switch REV-ERB on — and not dependent on it
It was built to activate REV-ERB. In cells with both REV-ERB genes deleted, it still changed metabolism and gene expression.
╌╌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
SR9009 is a synthetic REV-ERB agonist. In hepatocytes and embryonic stem cells with conditional deletion of both Nr1d1 and Nr1d2, it decreased viability, rewired metabolism and altered transcription, establishing that its effects cannot be used solely as a surrogate for REV-ERB activity. The off-target mechanism has not been identified.
In mice, core clock genes and metabolic genes in liver, muscle and fat change their daily pattern, and energy expenditure rises.
╌╌Measured in animals. A result in animals says what to test next. It does not say what happens in people.
The measurement behind this step
Altered circadian behaviour and hypothalamic core clock gene expression, altered circadian expression of metabolic genes in liver, skeletal muscle and adipose tissue, increased energy expenditure, reduced fat mass, and improved dyslipidaemia and hyperglycaemia in diet-induced obese mice. In oxidative muscle, REV-ERB alpha activity controls mitochondrial biogenesis and autophagy through the LKB1-AMPK-SIRT1-PGC-1alpha pathway.
Impressive in mice, absent in humans, mechanism unresolved
Fourteen years after the Nature paper, no human has taken it in a trial and the mechanism behind the mouse results is an open question.
──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
Zero registered clinical trials, zero human pharmacokinetic data, no sponsor, poor oral bioavailability, prohibited in sport as a metabolic modulator, and present in products sold as something else. The 2019 double-knockout result means the animal findings stand as observations while their attribution to REV-ERB does not.
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.
Nobody in a trial, because there has never been one. Outside trials, people buying it as an endurance and fat-loss compound, usually alongside SARMs — and, in the only chain-of-custody analysis of that market, people who bought something labelled as a SARM and received this instead.
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 clinical trial of SR9009 has ever been registered, at any phase, in any country
The compound has no pharmaceutical sponsor and was never taken into development despite two high-profile journal papers
The mechanistic attribution underlying its entire reputation was overturned in 2019
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
Still being tested
❝ 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
Intraperitoneal injection in the animal literature; oral capsules and liquids sold as research chemicals
✎ 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
Professional supervision is normally required. It is a prescription or clinician-administered medicine where it is approved.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
The identity record classes it as investigational; no register records an approval.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
The defining in vivo experiments used twice-daily intraperitoneal injection because SR9009 has poor oral bioavailability and a short half-life. What is sold is an oral capsule or dropper liquid. There is no human pharmacokinetic study for any route, so the relationship between a capsule and any published dose is unknown.
✎ 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 and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No register entry is recorded.
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
There is no human safety data of any kind, because no human has taken SR9009 in a study. The one safety-relevant laboratory observation comes from the experiment that undermined its mechanism: in cells lacking both REV-ERB receptors, SR9009 decreased cell viability. A compound that reduces cell viability through an unidentified off-target pathway, at unknown human exposure, taken orally in a form its own pharmacology does not support, has no characterised risk profile — which is a different statement from a favourable one.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
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∅Nothing found in the sources checked
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
Intraperitoneal injection in the animal literature; oral capsules and liquids sold as research chemicals
✎ 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
What is sold is an oral capsule or dropper liquid. There is no human pharmacokinetic study for any route, so the relationship between a capsule and any published dose is unknown.
✎ 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 which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
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
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine, investigational agent. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of SR-9009 studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
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 the SR9009 mouse results demonstrate REV-ERB pharmacology, which the double-knockout experiment refutes
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 an oral capsule delivers the exposure achieved by twice-daily injection in mice, when the compound has poor oral bioavailability and no human pharmacokinetic data
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 improved running capacity in mice predicts an endurance effect in a person, which no study has attempted
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 fourteen years of preclinical interest implies a safety profile; there is no human safety data of any kind
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.
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 SR-9009 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.
It still works in cells that have no REV-ERB at all
In plain words
Researchers deleted both REV-ERB genes and gave the resulting cells SR9009. The cells still changed their viability, their metabolism and their gene expression.
What was measured
That SR9009 effects demonstrate REV-ERB pharmacology, which the double-knockout experiment specifically refutes
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Dierickx et al. generated a mouse model for conditional genetic deletion of both REV-ERB alpha and REV-ERB beta, noting that the direct involvement of REV-ERBs in the reported effects of SR9009 had never been thoroughly assessed because no experiment had been performed in the complete absence of both proteins. In hepatocytes and embryonic stem cells lacking both receptors, SR9009 still decreased cell viability, rewired cellular metabolism and altered gene transcription. Their conclusion is stated flatly: the effects of SR9009 cannot be used solely as a surrogate for REV-ERB activity. Every mouse result attributed to REV-ERB agonism by this compound — the fat loss, the metabolic gene changes, the running capacity — is now a result whose mechanism is unestablished, and some of it may not be REV-ERB at all.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
In obese mice it reduced fat mass and improved lipids and glucose
In plain words
The original 2012 Nature paper showed a REV-ERB agonist shifting circadian and metabolic gene expression, raising energy expenditure, and reducing obesity in diet-induced obese mice.
What was measured
Fat mass, plasma lipids and glucose, energy expenditure and circadian gene expression in diet-induced obese mice
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Solt et al. described the identification of potent synthetic REV-ERB agonists with in vivo activity. Administration altered circadian behaviour and the circadian pattern of core clock gene expression in mouse hypothalamus, and altered the circadian expression of an array of metabolic genes in liver, skeletal muscle and adipose tissue, resulting in increased energy expenditure. Treatment of diet-induced obese mice with a REV-ERB agonist decreased obesity by reducing fat mass and markedly improving dyslipidaemia and hyperglycaemia. The authors proposed these ligands as potentially beneficial in sleep and metabolic disorders. The dosing route in this work was injection, not oral, and every subject was a mouse.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Where "exercise in a pill" came from
In plain words
A 2013 paper showed that REV-ERB alpha controls mitochondrial number in oxidative muscle and that activating it pharmacologically increased exercise capacity in mice.
What was measured
Mitochondrial content and oxidative function in skeletal muscle, and exercise capacity, on genetic and pharmacological REV-ERB manipulation in mice
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Woldt et al. showed that Rev-erb-alpha is highly expressed in oxidative skeletal muscle, and that muscle deficiency of it reduced mitochondrial content and oxidative function while upregulating autophagy — impairing mitochondrial biogenesis and increasing clearance of the organelle, and compromising exercise capacity. At the molecular level, deficiency deactivated the Lkb1-Ampk-Sirt1-Ppargc-1alpha pathway; the effects were reproduced in isolated fibres and in muscle cells after Nr1d1 knockdown. Conversely, overexpression in vitro increased mitochondrial number and respiratory capacity, and muscle overexpression or pharmacological activation in vivo increased exercise capacity. This is the source of the endurance claim. It is a mouse study, its pharmacological arm used SR9009, and the 2019 knockout work means the pharmacological arm can no longer be read as proof that the effect was REV-ERB-mediated.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
It turned up in products sold as SARMs
In plain words
When 44 internet products advertised as SARMs were bought and analysed, SR9009 was one of the unapproved drugs found in items that contained no SARM at all.
What was measured
Proportion of internet SARM products containing a different unapproved drug, with SR9009 among those named
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Van Wagoner et al. identified suppliers by web search, purchased 44 products sold as selective androgen receptor modulators, and analysed them under chain of custody using WADA-approved procedures. Only 23 of 44 (52%) contained a SARM. A further 17 (39%) contained a different unapproved drug — and the three named are ibutamoren, GW501516 and the REV-ERB agonist SR9009. No active compound at all was found in 4 (9%), substances not on the label were present in 11 (25%), and the measured amount matched the label in only 18 of 44 (41%). For SR9009 specifically, this means a proportion of the personal experience reports attached to it belong to people who thought they were taking something else, and a proportion of the reports attached to SARMs belong to people who were taking this.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Never given to a human being in a trial
In plain words
There is no registered clinical trial of SR9009 anywhere, at any phase, in any country, fourteen years after the Nature paper.
What was measured
Registered human clinical trials of SR9009: zero. Published human pharmacokinetic studies: zero
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
SR9009 has no registered interventional study on any trial registry, no published human pharmacokinetic data, no phase 1, and no pharmaceutical sponsor. It is prohibited at all times in sport under WADA class S4.5 as a metabolic modulator. The practical reason it never advanced is documented in the chemistry rather than in a press release: SR9009 has poor oral bioavailability and a short half-life, which is why the defining mouse experiments used twice-daily intraperitoneal injection. A compound sold as an oral capsule, whose own animal literature could not use the oral route, is being taken in a way its pharmacology does not support even before the mechanism question is raised.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The doping laboratories had to build the metabolite map from scratch
In plain words
Because no human has been dosed in a study, anti-doping chemists generated SR9009 metabolites in liver homogenate and in a fungus in order to know what to look for.
What was measured
Metabolite profile of SR9009 generated in liver homogenate and fungal biotransformation models for doping control
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Anti-doping analytical work on SR9009 has used liver homogenate and the fungus Cunninghamella elegans as biotransformation models to generate metabolic profiles by LC-high-resolution mass spectrometry, because human excretion data do not exist. That is the standard workaround when a prohibited compound has never been administered under study conditions, and it is a precise measure of how far outside the pharmaceutical system this compound sits: the analytical community has had to reconstruct its metabolism from surrogate systems in order to police it.
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.
The "exercise in a pill" compound: it improved running capacity and reduced fat mass in mice, has never been given to a human in any trial, is barely orally bioavailable, and was shown in 2019 to alter cell viability, metabolism and transcription in cells engineered to lack both of the receptors it was designed to act on.
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.