Analytical evidence
CJC-1295 With DAC vs No DAC: Check the Material Identifiers
Separate DAC modification, peptide sequence, salt form and blend identity when comparing CJC-1295 laboratory materials and analytical records.
In this guide · 6 sections
The short answer
CJC-1295 with DAC and material sold as CJC-1295 no DAC require different structural descriptions. The DAC designation refers to a chemical modification of the peptide. It does not identify the salt form, and it does not say whether the product contains another peptide. A useful laboratory comparison keeps all three questions separate: which peptide structure, which supplied form and which components?
This guide explains material identity for laboratory research procurement. It provides no preparation instructions or basis for human or veterinary use.
The shared CJC-1295 name is a starting point for finding records. A match for procurement or analytical work needs the fuller identifiers behind that name.
Compare the structural entries before the product titles
Cayman Chemical's safety data sheet for item 32704 lists CJC-1295-no DAC and Modified GRF (1-29) as synonyms. The structural contrast with the DAC-bearing form is an additional modified lysine at the peptide's C terminus, bearing a maleimidopropionyl group, abbreviated MPA in the manufacturer's structural notation. The expanded structure is needed to distinguish that extension from a salt-form qualifier.
These reference descriptions illustrate the distinction without establishing a universal naming convention for every supplier. The safety data sheet above supports the item number and aliases; it is not a complete sequence specification.
| Identifier | No-DAC reference description | DAC reference description |
|---|---|---|
| Manufacturer item | Cayman 32704 | Cayman 31497 |
| Material designation | CJC-1295 no DAC | CJC-1295-DAC |
| Structural distinction | Specified 29-residue peptide without the DAC-bearing extension | Specified peptide with a C-terminal MPA-modified lysine extension |
| Alias information | Includes Modified GRF (1-29) and CJC-1295-no DAC | Includes DAC-GRF |
| Supplied salt | Confirm independently for the offered material | Confirm independently for the offered material |
The salt row deliberately remains a separate verification question. Acetate does not by itself identify no-DAC material, and trifluoroacetate does not by itself identify DAC material.
DAC status and salt form are independent fields
A covalent modification and a salt designation describe different aspects of a material. Preserve both rather than select one from a shortened product title. If the product record and its accompanying document use different form descriptions, ask the issuer to reconcile them before assigning a salt to the material.
Think of DAC status as one field and supplied form as another:
DAC status: does the structural specification include the DAC-bearing modification?
Supplied form: what salt or other form is specified for the material offered?
An answer to either question does not supply the answer to the other. In particular, “CJC-1295 acetate” still needs a clear structural definition if the source has not resolved DAC status.
This distinction matters when documents arrive from different teams. A purchasing quotation may retain the salt qualifier, a product title may retain “no DAC,” and a laboratory report may shorten the name to CJC-1295. Combining those records requires evidence that they concern the same intended material. Similar wording alone is insufficient.
Modified GRF (1-29) still needs its sequence
The alias Modified GRF (1-29) is useful when searching for no-DAC material. The reference structure includes D-alanine near the beginning of the sequence and an amidated C terminus. Those are distinct details: the IUPAC-IUB stereochemical convention and amide-notation addendum explain how to retain them. These naming rules interpret a stated structure; they do not authenticate a supplied batch.
Preserve those details in the technical specification. A shortened “GRF (1-29)” entry can omit the word modified, while a sequence copied without its notation can lose stereochemical or terminal information. The purchasing record should point back to an explicit structure or complete sequence with its modifications.
“No DAC” is also a negative descriptor: it says a particular modification is absent. By itself, it does not supply every positive detail needed to define the remaining peptide. Ask what structure the supplier means, including any substitutions and terminal groups, rather than constructing it from the name yourself.
Keep a blend name separate from each component's identity
A product combining CJC-1295 with Ipamorelin introduces a different question from DAC status. Two peptides in a blend need separately defined component identities. The presence of Ipamorelin neither supplies nor changes the definition of the CJC-1295 component.
Peptide Confidential's CJC-1295 + Ipamorelin product page includes “no DAC” in the product title. Its linked certificate for lot CP10-WS-0703 reports CJC-1295 and Ipamorelin in separate analytical rows. The certificate uses the shorter CJC-1295 name and does not provide a full sequence or an explicit DAC-status field. Published certificate for CP10-WS-0703
That difference in document detail should remain visible. The product title supplies a designation; the certificate supplies the findings it actually reports. If a laboratory requires a fully specified no-DAC identity, request the structural specification and its relationship to the reported analyte. Do not attach another manufacturer's complete sequence or salt form to this lot by inference.
For questions about comparing the component measurements themselves, see Read Peptide Blend Evidence One Component at a Time. Here the task is narrower: ensure that the CJC-1295 component has the intended identity before interpreting its other results.
Reconcile an incomplete CJC-1295 record
Use the following questions in order. Each closes a different gap.
Which structural definition does the name represent? Obtain the full sequence or structure, including residue configuration, terminal groups and the presence or absence of the DAC-bearing extension.
Which supplied form is specified? Record the salt or form independently of DAC status. Keep an unspecified field open rather than selecting a familiar form.
Is this a single-component material or a blend? Identify each component separately and preserve the product's mixture designation.
What did the laboratory identify? Ask which structural target and reference material correspond to a shortened CJC-1295 result.
Do the identifiers agree? If the name, structure, formula or registry reference differ, request reconciliation from the document issuer instead of choosing one field silently.
A useful purchasing conclusion states both what is matched and what remains open. For example, the documents may agree on the no-DAC designation while leaving the supplied salt unspecified. That is more actionable than marking the entire identity “verified.”
The same reconciliation works across Canadian, US and other international quotations. Retain the manufacturer's item number and the supplier's full designation so that a later purchase does not inherit an incomplete name from the previous one. For Peptide Confidential material, use the published results associated with the relevant lot and request clarification where a required structural field remains unresolved.
Sources and scope
The safety data sheet is cited only for one manufacturer's item number and aliases, and the IUPAC-IUB rules for how stereochemistry and amides are written. The comparison table and the reconciliation questions are original editorial tools; they assign no sequence, salt form or DAC status to any Peptide Confidential lot.
IUPAC-IUB: Three-letter symbols for amino acids (3AA-14 to 3AA-16)
IUPAC-IUB: Nomenclature addenda, including amide derivatives
Published by Peptide Confidential, a commercial supplier of research materials. Apply these checks to our documentation as well as another supplier's.