Pentadeca arginate — usually shortened to PDA — is sold in the research-chemical market as the next thing after BPC-157: the same peptide, the sellers say, in a more stable form. It arrived quickly and it is widely stocked.
This entry is short, because the public record on it is.
The one record that exists: a 2013 patent
The arginine salt of BPC-157 is described in US patent 9,850,282, "Stable pentadecapeptide salts", filed by Diagen d.o.o. of Slovenia, inventor Rudolf Rucman, priority date 13 March 2013, granted 26 December 2017 (Google Patents record, read 7 October 2026). It claims BPC-157 paired with one, two or three molecules of a basic amino acid and names the salt with two arginines, "Arg-BPC", as preferred. Its stated aim is oral use: it says the existing forms have inadequate stability in gastric juice.
The name "pentadeca arginate" does not appear in it. The patent's stability tables are the holder's own measurements and have not been replicated in any published paper found. PeptiFact's acetate-versus-arginate comparison works through those tables and the mass arithmetic of the two salts.
What was searched, and what came back
On 2026-09-19, and again on 2026-10-07, three kinds of public record were searched under every name form the compound is sold under.
| Record | Search terms | Result |
|---|---|---|
| ClinicalTrials.gov | pentadeca arginate · pentadecapeptide arginate | 0 registrations |
| PubMed | pentadeca arginate · pentadecapeptide arginate · arginate + BPC · arginine salt + BPC-157 | 0 records |
| PubChem | pentadeca arginate · pentadecapeptide arginate | No CID |
That is an absence in all three at once — regulatory, bibliographic and chemical — with the patent the only document anywhere. It is worth saying why that combination is unusual. Plenty of compounds in this library have no clinical evidence; several have no registration. Very few have no structure record, because PubChem indexes molecules regardless of whether anyone has studied them. A compound with no CID is one that has not been deposited under that name by anyone at all.
What the name asserts
Two things, and both are worth separating from evidence.
Pentadeca- means fifteen. BPC-157 is a fifteen-residue peptide, so the name asserts the same chain length — the sequence GEPPPGKPADDAGLV, if it is in fact the same sequence.
Arginate names a salt form: the peptide supplied paired with arginine as its counter-ion, rather than the acetate that most research peptides are supplied as. A salt form is a real and ordinary thing. It changes how a powder dissolves, how it behaves in storage, and how much of the weighed mass is peptide. What it does not change is the amino acid sequence — the peptide inside is the same chain.
So the name, read carefully, claims a formulation difference rather than a new molecule — which is also what the patent describes. The marketing claim built on top of it — that the formulation difference produces a better result in a body — is a further step, and it is the step with nothing behind it: the patent measured stability, not effect.
The comparison the marketing invites
PDA is not sold as a new compound. It is sold as an improvement on a named one, which makes the comparison unavoidable. Here is what sits on the other side of it.
BPC-157 has a PubChem record (CID 9941957), 230 PubMed records and four ClinicalTrials.gov registrations as of 2026-09-19. That looks substantial next to zero. But reading those records rather than counting them: none of the 230 papers carries the clinical-trial publication type, and none of the four registrations has posted a result — two have not begun recruiting, one is filed under a product name and has carried the registry status UNKNOWN since 2015, and the one marked completed administered a consumer gummy product.
So the claim being made is that PDA improves on a compound whose own human evidence has not yet produced a single completed, published clinical result. Both sides of the comparison are weaker than the conversation around them suggests, and PDA's side holds one stability patent and no study.
How to read an absence
This library treats a documented absence as a finding rather than a gap, and the distinction is in whether the search is reproducible. The three searches above are stated in full, with their dates, so anyone can repeat them. This entry first said no record of any kind existed; the patent was missed because it never uses the market name, and the entry was corrected on 2026-10-07.
An absence is also not an accusation. Nothing here says PDA does not work, or that it is unsafe, or that the stability claim is false. It says that on the date searched, beyond the patent holder's own stability tables, no public record existed that would let anyone check — and that a compound sold on a comparison ought to be readable in the same places as the thing it is compared to.
Where it stands
PDA is not approved as a medicine in any country, and no regulatory filing for it was found. Material sold under the name carries a research-use label, which is a statement by the seller about what the product is sold for. It is not an approval, a safety finding or a quality standard, and no regulator has evaluated the substance because that label is on the bottle.
Related entries: the compound this one is sold against; KPV and the thymosin fragment sold for repair; and what "research use only" actually means, for the label on the vial.