Peptides BPC-157 versus TB-500

comparing healing peptides: a reason to stack or pulse.

BPC-157 vs TB-500

by Dr. Logan for Peptidesciences

BPC-157 vs TB-500

BPC-157 and TB-500 are both potent healing peptides with vast amounts of research investigating their properties and potential uses. Both are also synthetic derivatives of naturally occurring proteins that have been modified to enhance their already abundant features. Both peptides have been shown to improve immune function, enhance healing throughout the body, and even counteract some of the effects of aging. Still, BPC-157 vs TB-500 is a valid comparison as these two peptides are not the same and do not share all of the same functions. Below is a comparative overview outlining factors that may influence the selection of BPC-157 versus TB-500 in experimental or research contexts.

Photo by Hassaan Here peptides

BPC-157 vs TB-500: General Wound Healing

Both TB-500 and BPC-157 have been shown to accelerate wound healing and tissue repair. BPC-157, a derivative of body protection compound (BPC), has a dose-dependent effect on the growth and migration of fibroblasts, the cells responsible for extracellular matrix repair[1]. TB-500, a derivative of thymosin beta-4 (Tβ-4) has a similar effect that it produces by manipulating actin filaments. Actin is a protein that plays central roles in cell reproduction and migration. Research shows that TB-500 can increase the rate of fibroblast growth and migration as well as boost health and migration of cells of the immune system.

BPC-157 vs TB-500: Blood Vessel Growth

Both BPC-157 and TB-500 are potent stimulators of blood vessel growth. A robust supply of blood vessels is necessary to deliver immune and repair cells to a site of injury. Research shows that responsive blood vessel growth is necessary for all types of wound repair including musculoskeletal, cardiovascular, and neurological injuries.

The primary driver of blood vessel growth is a hormone called vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF for short). TB-500 directly increases the production of VEGF whereas BPC-157 increases the number of VEGF receptors (called VEGFR2)[2], [3]. Both peptides stimulate the growth of life-sustaining blood vessels, though they do so by approaching the solution from different sides of the same equation.

BPC-157 vs TB-500: Cardiovascular Health

When it comes to cardiovascular health, TB-500 takes the prize, but perhaps only because more research has focused on TB-500 in this particular application. In fact, more than two decades of research into TB-500 have shown that the peptide has multiple cardiovascular benefits. Besides promoting the growth of collateral blood vessels that provide increased oxygen to sensitive heart muscle, TB-500 encourages the growth and migration of endothelial cells and it reduces the inflammation and scarring that lead to long-term problems like heart failure[4]. There is actually work being don on TB-500 infused gels that can be implanted following heart attack to help promote long-term recovery and health[5].

BPC-157 is no slouch when it comes to heart health, but it certainly hasn’t been investigated to the extent that TB-500 has. Perhaps most important among BPC-157’s properties are its antioxidant effects. Research shows that BPC-157 neutralizes malondialdehyde (MDA), a powerful free radical and major problem following heart attack.

Though both peptides show promise in the protection of cardiovascular health, TB 500 comes out ahead because so much more is known about its function in this area. If you had to choose between the two, understand that both have promising research in animal models but that BPC-157 remains less explored in terms of cardiovascular benefit.

BPC-157 vs TB-500: Gastrointestinal Healing

BPC, the parent compound to BPC-157, was originally isolated from human gastric juice. It really isn’t surprising then that when it comes to healing in the GI tract, BPC-157 takes the lead. Research on BPC-157 has found that it helps with healing of all type’s injuries in the GI tract but that it is particularly useful in treating fistulas. Fistulas, which are common in diseases like Crohn’s and ulcerative colitis, are notoriously difficult to treat with the average fistula taking two or more years to completely cure. In rat models, BPC-157 has been shown to reduce that timeframe to just one month[6]. That means administration of BPC-157, either by mouth or by injection, leads to fistula healing rates that are roughly 25 times greater than the natural healing process.

TB-500 may not be the leader in GI benefits in this comparison, but the peptide is not to be forgotten entirely in this area. Research shows that TB-500 can work in tandem with antibiotic treatment to vastly increase rates of recovery from serious bacterial infections[7]. It seems that TB-500 works synergistically with a number of antibiotics to help overcome life-threatening infections. This is particularly relevant in modern medicine as multiple pathogens are rapidly gaining resistance to current antibiotic regimens. Recovery of the GI tract is often dependent on maintaining a pathogen free environment in the abdomen. As such, TB-500 may be useful in preventing complications following GI surgery.

BPC-157 vs TB-500: Musculoskeletal Repair

When it comes to tendon, ligament, and bone injuries, the comparison between BPC-157 vs TB-500 is about as tight as it gets. Both peptides have been extensively tested in this area and have been shown to have dramatic benefit in animal models.

BPC-157 has been shown to accelerate growth of tendons by increasing fibroblast growth, survival, and migration[8]. Studies of healing tendon show increased levels of bFGF, EFG, and VEGF following the administration of BPC-157. The higher the levels of these growth factors, the faster wounds heal[9].

There is also good evidence from in vivo experiments showing that BPC-157 dramatically increases the numbers of GH receptors on tendons[10]. Growth hormone is well known for its ability to speed wound healing, increase musculoskeletal development, and boost immune function.

TB-500 a power house when it comes to musculoskeletal injury as well. It doesn’t have quite the targeted effects that BPC-157 has, but it’s ability to enhance fibroblast growth and migration is important in all tissue repair. Fibroblasts tend to be deficient in many musculoskeletal tissues, but are especially scarce in tendons. The ability of TB-500 to enhance their migration, combined with its ability to stimulate blood vessel growth in damaged tissue means that it can drastically boost numbers of fibroblasts and thus help to accelerate repair.

For both BPC-157 and TB-500, research shows that repairs are more orderly and stronger than repairs in control subjects. This is particularly true with tendon repairs, where those treated with either of these peptides are less likely to be reinjured.

BPC-157 vs TB-500: COVID 19

The COVID 19 pandemic may or may not be winding down, but researchers familiar with TB-500 and BPC-157 suggest that both of these peptides should be researched for treating people who are suffering from the virus. TB-500 could be of use both as a treatment and as a preventative given that it can block some binding sites on ACE and may therefore alter how the body’s ACE receptors function[11], [12]. Keep in mind that ACE receptors are thought to be co-opted by COVID 19 in order for it to gain entry into cells.

BPC-157 has been shown to have potent anti-coagulant properties. In other words, it prevents clots from forming. Clots are a late-stage complication of COVID infection and one that doctors have struggled to deal with adequately. BPC-157 may work via that FAK-Paxillin adhesion system to normalize blood clotting and prevent both clots and bleeding.

BPC-157 vs TB-500: The Final Word

In truth, BPC-157 and TB-500 need not be pitted against one another. In fact, these two peptides are very synergistic when used together. If you think about it, TB-500 and BPC-157 have similar effects on a number of tissues, but they produce these effects via different pathways. This is the perfect recipe for synergy and suggests that a combination of the two peptides may be particularly potent for healing and wound repair in most if not all tissues. They have their strengths and their weaker areas, but TB-500 and BPC-157 are pretty evenly matched, and both stand at the very pinnacle of peptides for healing. CHM practitioners know their peptides and can guide patients on use, stacking and pulsing programs.

Resources

[1] T. Huang et al., “Body protective compound-157 enhances alkali-burn wound healing in vivo and promotes proliferation, migration, and angiogenesis in vitro,” Drug Des. Devel. Ther., vol. 9, pp. 2485–2499, 2015, doi: 10.2147/DDDT.S82030.

[2] K. N. Dubé and N. Smart, “Thymosin β4 and the vasculature: multiple roles in development, repair and protection against disease,” Expert Opin. Biol. Ther., vol. 18, no. sup1, Art. no. sup1, Jul. 2018, doi: 10.1080/14712598.2018.1459558.

[3] M.-J. Hsieh et al., “Therapeutic potential of pro-angiogenic BPC157 is associated with VEGFR2 activation and up-regulation,” J. Mol. Med., vol. 95, no. 3, Art. no. 3, Mar. 2017, doi: 10.1007/s00109-016-1488-y.

[4] K. M. Kassem, S. Vaid, H. Peng, S. Sarkar, and N.-E. Rhaleb, “Tβ4-Ac-SDKP pathway: Any relevance for the cardiovascular system?,” Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol., vol. 97, no. 7, pp. 589–599, Jul. 2019, doi: 10.1139/cjpp-2018-0570.

[5] A. D. Shaghiera, P. Widiyanti, and H. Yusuf, “Synthesis and Characterization of Injectable Hydrogels with Varying Collagen⁻Chitosan⁻Thymosin β4 Composition for Myocardial Infarction Therapy,” J. Funct. Biomater., vol. 9, no. 2, p. E33, Apr. 2018, doi: 10.3390/jfb9020033.

[6] M. Baric et al., “Stable gastric pentadecapeptide BPC 157 heals rectovaginal fistula in rats,” Life Sci., vol. 148, pp. 63–70, Mar. 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.lfs.2016.02.029.

[7] T. W. Carion et al., “Thymosin Beta-4 and Ciprofloxacin Adjunctive Therapy Improves Pseudomonas aeruginosa-Induced Keratitis,” Cells, vol. 7, no. 10, Art. no. 10, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.3390/cells7100145.

[8] D. Gwyer, N. M. Wragg, and S. L. Wilson, “Gastric pentadecapeptide body protection compound BPC 157 and its role in accelerating musculoskeletal soft tissue healing,” Cell Tissue Res., vol. 377, no. 2, Art. no. 2, Aug. 2019, doi: 10.1007/s00441-019-03016-8.

[9] S. Seiwerth et al., “BPC 157 and Standard Angiogenic Growth Factors. Gastrointestinal Tract Healing, Lessons from Tendon, Ligament, Muscle and Bone Healing,” Curr. Pharm. Des., vol. 24, no. 18, pp. 1972–1989, 2018, doi: 10.2174/1381612824666180712110447.

[10] C.-H. Chang, W.-C. Tsai, Y.-H. Hsu, and J.-H. S. Pang, “Pentadecapeptide BPC 157 enhances the growth hormone receptor expression in tendon fibroblasts,” Mol. Basel Switz., vol. 19, no. 11, Art. no. 11, Nov. 2014, doi: 10.3390/molecules191119066.

[11] J. L. Zhuo et al., “Characterization and localization of Ac-SDKP receptor binding sites using 125I-labeled Hpp-Aca-SDKP in rat cardiac fibroblasts,” Am. J. Physiol. Heart Circ. Physiol., vol. 292, no. 2, Art. no. 2, Feb. 2007, doi: 10.1152/ajpheart.00776.2006.

[12] G. Masuyer, R. G. Douglas, E. D. Sturrock, and K. R. Acharya, “Structural basis of Ac-SDKP hydrolysis by Angiotensin-I converting enzyme,” Sci. Rep., vol. 5, Sep. 2015, doi: 10.1038/srep13742.