Dihexa
PNB-0408, N-hexanoic-Tyr-Ile-(6) aminohexanoic amide, Angiotensin IV analog
Checked Oct 28, 2026
The short answer
No human evidence yet for memory, focus and cognitive enhancement in healthy adults
Grade D for cognitive enhancement in people, result not tested in humans: no human trial of dihexa exists, and the two papers that explained its mechanism were retracted in 2025.
- Approved?
- Not approved for any use.
- Safety: E, flagged
- There is no human safety data of any kind, and the pathway it targets (HGF/c-Met) is a well-studied cancer-promoting axis.
The full answer: what it is for, the dose, the units
What people take it for: People take it hoping for sharper memory, focus and verbal fluency. It is an experimental angiotensin IV analog with no approved use anywhere.
Does it work for memory, focus and cognitive enhancement in healthy adults? D, no human evidence yet. Result: not tested in humans.
Grade D for cognitive enhancement in people, result not tested in humans: no human trial of dihexa exists, and the two papers that explained its mechanism were retracted in 2025. The only surviving animal paper, in rats, carries an expression of concern.
No approval for any use.
Safety: E, flagged. There is no human safety data of any kind, and the pathway it targets (HGF/c-Met) is a well-studied cancer-promoting axis.
Do not use if: Personal or family history of cancer (especially HGF/c-Met-amplified cancers: lung, gastric, renal).
Could it be placebo? No controlled trial exists for this use, so a placebo effect cannot be ruled out, and the reported effects are almost entirely subjective.
The dose people use, and the units to draw
No verified human dose exists. The only sourced figures are from rats (0.05 to 0.5 mg/kg per day intraperitoneal, 1.25 to 2.0 mg/kg per day by mouth in one flagged 2013 paper), and the FDA says it has found no human exposure data by any route.
| Source | Dose | How often and how | Who it was for | Link |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FDA, certain bulk drug substances that may present significant safety risks | No human dose; no human exposure data stated | Not applicable | Humans: FDA says it has not identified any human exposure data on drug products containing dihexa acetate administered by any route | Dihexa acetate entry |
| McCoy et al. 2013 (rat study, not a human trial) | 2.0 mg/kg per day (highest oral dose tested) | Oral gavage, once daily for 8 days | Rats in a water-maze memory model (Fig. 3C); the same 2 mg/kg oral dose was used in aged rats (Fig. 5) | Results, Fig. 3C and Fig. 5 |
| McCoy et al. 2013 (rat study, not a human trial) | 1.25 mg/kg per day (lower oral dose tested) | Oral gavage, once daily for 8 days | Rats in a water-maze memory model; the Fig. 3C legend prints the unit as 1.25/kg, read here as mg/kg | Results, Fig. 3C legend |
| McCoy et al. 2013 (rat study, not a human trial) | 0.05, 0.25 and 0.50 mg/kg per day | Intraperitoneal injection, once daily for 8 days | Rats in a water-maze memory model | Results, Fig. 3B |
The only sourced numbers are rat doses, from 0.05 mg/kg per day intraperitoneal to 2.0 mg/kg per day by mouth (McCoy 2013); they are not human doses and must not be scaled to a person.
No verified human dose exists. Dose ranges printed on this site before had no named non-seller source and are removed. We could not find a Huberman Lab, Dr. Abud Bakri, Examine or Attia statement of a dihexa dose in the searches run on Oct 28, 2026. The fosgonimeton trials tested a different molecule, so their doses are not dihexa doses.
Reported by the named source, never prescribed by us.
How many units do I draw?
Use the calculator: concentration in mg per mL is vial mg divided by water mL, and units on a U-100 syringe are dose mg divided by concentration, times 100. Open the dose calculator
Why it might work
- AT4 receptor bindingDihexa
- HGF potentiation (retracted basis)The core WSU papers (Kawas 2012
- c-Met downstream signalingc-Met activation
- Claimed synaptogenesis (animal only, basis retracted)Rodent behavioral studies reported rev
Assumed pathway, not shown in people.
ASSUMED (theoretical, foundational papers retracted): Dihexa was proposed to bind hepatocyte growth factor (HGF) with high affinity (Kd around 65 pM), stabilize its active dimeric form, and thereby amplify signaling through the c-Met receptor tyrosine kinase. This was theorized to promote synaptogenesis and dendritic spine formation in hippocampal neurons. The proposed advantage over HGF itself was that Dihexa is small enough to cross the blood-brain barrier where HGF cannot. However, both papers establishing this mechanism (Kawas 2012 and Benoist 2014) were formally retracted for data fabrication in April 2025. The mechanism is therefore currently unsupported in peer-reviewed literature. An alternative IRAP (insulin-regulated aminopeptidase) mechanism for angiotensin IV analogs exists in the literature and may partially explain some effects if any are real.
The trials, claim by claim
The letter counts how far testing got. Dihexa has rat data only (D); the fosgonimeton trials that failed in Alzheimer's tested a different molecule and do not count toward dihexa's letter.
- Self-experimenters report sharper recall and focus. The animal studies behind that claim were retracted for data fabrication in 2025.
- The two mechanistic papers that explained how it works were formally retracted by WSU in April 2025 after fabricated figures were confirmed. The HGF/c-Met story it was sold on is now unsupported in peer-reviewed literature.
- It activates a well-documented cancer-promoting signaling pathway and has never been tested in a single human safety trial. Every dose is a completely uncharted gamble.
Dihexa promotes synaptogenesis at picomolar concentrations, making it far more potent than BDNF
Result: not tested in humans
Based on in vitro assays from the McCoy et al. 2013 rodent study (PMC3533412), which remains under Expression of Concern since 2021. That paper reports synaptogenic activity at picomolar concentrations but, as far as we could find, makes no head-to-head potency comparison with BDNF; the 'millions of times more potent than BDNF' figure circulating online is not in it. No human data exists.
McCoy et al. 2013, PMC (Expression of Concern flagged)Dihexa reverses cognitive impairment in animal models via HGF/c-Met pathway activation
Result: not tested in humans
The two primary mechanistic papers establishing this claim (Kawas 2012 PMID 22129598; Benoist 2014 PMID 25187433) were both formally retracted in April 2025 following a Washington State University investigation that confirmed figures were falsified and/or fabricated by co-author Leen Kawas. Behavioral rodent data in the McCoy 2013 paper (Expression of Concern) remains the only non-retracted published evidence, and it is animal-only.
Retraction notice for Benoist 2014, PubMed PMID 40312093HGF/c-Met agonism improves cognitive outcomes in neurodegenerative disease
Result: did not work
The related small-molecule HGF mimetic fosgonimeton (ATH-1017, from Athira Pharma, whose former CEO Leen Kawas was the data-fabricating researcher) ran two human trials in Alzheimer's patients. The ACT-AD Phase 2 (2022) missed its primary and secondary endpoints when used alongside standard of care; monotherapy exploratory signals were mixed and not definitive. The subsequent LIFT-AD Phase 2/3 trial (topline results September 3, 2024; published 2025, primary analysis N=287, 26-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled) also failed to meet its primary endpoint (Global Statistical Test) and key secondary endpoints (ADAS-Cog11, ADCS-ADL23). Both trials failed. This is the closest human evidence for the compound class and both data points are negative.
NeurologyLive coverage of fosgonimeton ACT-AD Phase 2 resultsDihexa is orally bioavailable and can cross the blood-brain barrier
Result: not tested in humans
Oral activity in rats and brain penetration have been reported in rodents only; McCoy 2013's estimate of human oral absorption is a computational prediction, not a measurement. No human pharmacokinetic data has been published. Whether these properties translate to humans is entirely unknown.
McCoy et al. 2013, J Pharmacol Exp Ther (PMID 23055539; Notice of Concern 2021)Dihexa is safe for human self-experimentation
Result: not tested in humans
No Phase 1 safety study has ever been conducted in humans. Rodent data shows dose-dependent hepatotoxicity (elevated ALT/AST) at higher doses; we could not verify a named source for a liver-toxicity threshold, so none is stated. The precise floor is unknown. The compound activates the HGF/c-Met pathway, which is one of the most well-documented oncogenic signaling axes in human cancer biology. There is no human safety data of any kind. The cited source is a community wiki with no primary references; no peer-reviewed human safety data exists to cite.
Peptide Protocol Wiki: Dihexa side effects and safety profile (community wiki, no primary sources; cited as the only available summary, not as evidence)FDA says it has found no human exposure data on dihexa acetate by any route of administration.
Statement on FDA's own page listing compounding safety risks, content current as of 2026-04-22.
FDA, certain bulk drug substances that may present significant safety risksA third paper from the same Washington State group on HGF/Met mimetics (Kawas 2011) was retracted in April 2025, alongside the 2012 and 2014 papers.
PubMed retraction notice records (PMIDs 40312092, 40312093, 40312094). The 2011 paper concerns anti-Met anticancer mimetics, not dihexa itself.
PubMed 21859930 with retraction notice 40312094Risks and the label warnings
Adverse events
No controlled human adverse event data exists. Anecdotal community reports include headache, mood changes, irritability, brain fog, GI upset, nausea, appetite and sleep changes, and blood pressure fluctuations. Transdermal DMSO application adds skin reaction risk at the application site.
Contraindications
Personal or family history of cancer (especially HGF/c-Met-amplified cancers: lung, gastric, renal). Active liver disease. Pregnancy or breastfeeding. Use alongside other growth factor or anabolic signaling compounds that may compound proliferative pathway load.
Theoretical concerns
The most serious theoretical risk is oncogenic. HGF/c-Met is a deeply studied oncogenic signaling axis implicated in lung, breast, colon, kidney, liver, gastric cancer, and glioblastoma. Chronic or repeated agonism of this pathway in a person with subclinical or precancerous cell populations is biologically plausible as tumor-promoting. Rodent data shows dose-dependent hepatotoxicity at higher doses; we could not verify the source for a reported rat study showing no hepatotoxicity, so no liver-safety threshold is stated. No long-term oncological endpoint data exists in any species.
What nobody knows yet
Human pharmacokinetics and bioavailability. Safe dose range in humans. Long-term safety at any dose. Drug interactions. Whether c-Met agonism from systemic dosing actually reaches the CNS at meaningful levels in humans. Whether the HGF/c-Met mechanistic hypothesis even holds, given the retraction of its foundational papers.
What else could explain the result
Community self-experimenters almost universally stack Dihexa with other nootropics (racetams, peptides, adaptogens, modafinil/armodafinil, caffeine). TRT in male self-experimenters adds a baseline cognitive and energy effect that inflates any perceived Dihexa signal. Many stack with BPC-157 or other healing peptides, further obscuring attribution. Placebo effects are particularly strong with compounds that carry heavy 'most potent nootropic ever' branding online.
Is the vial what it says?
Cross-checked against the cited sources below. The grade reflects the absence of formal human safety and efficacy data.
Half-life and storage
Half-life: Unknown in humans. Animal pharmacokinetic studies suggest extended duration relative to earlier angiotensin IV analogs due to the metabolic stabilization introduced in the PNB-0408 design. No human half-life data exists.
Once mixed: Dihexa is typically sold as a raw powder. It has reported poor water solubility; many community protocols dissolve it in DMSO, ethanol, or PEG-400 before use. Standard peptide reconstitution in bacteriostatic water is not reliable due to solubility limitations. Solubility must be confirmed in chosen vehicle before dosing.
What I noticed, and what people report
What people report
Volume of reports: faint. Little real-world record, or mostly noise.
Moderate community discussion exists on Longecity, Reddit nootropic forums, and biohacking communities, mostly concentrated between 2015-2022. Discussion has dropped since the 2025 retractions.
Inconsistent. Positive reports of enhanced focus and verbal fluency sit alongside reports of persistent brain fog and mood disruption. No clear dose-response pattern emerges from anecdotes.
Low. No controlled reports. Heavy baseline stacking makes attribution impossible. Strong placebo priming from extreme potency marketing. The foundational science is now retracted.
- ANECDOTE: Some users report noticeable improvements in verbal fluency and word retrieval within days of starting, often described as the most striking effect.
- ANECDOTE: A subset of users report persistent brain fog, mental fatigue, or emotional blunting that outlasts a cycle and is slow to resolve after stopping.
- ANECDOTE: Users who stack with modafinil or racetams frequently report difficulty separating any Dihexa effect from the baseline stack, and many attribute effects to Dihexa based on timing alone.
- ANECDOTE: After the 2025 retraction news circulated in biohacking communities, several long-term users reported discontinuing use and noted no obvious cognitive decline on cessation, raising questions about whether earlier perceived benefits were real.
Reports are anecdote, not proof.
Can you tell if it is working?
There is no objective way to prove dihexa works, its only endpoints are brain synaptogenesis (not peripherally measurable) and subjective cognition, with zero human data.
Bloodwork
Nothing on a routine panel confirms this one. Anyone who says otherwise is guessing.
Dihexa is an orally-active, brain-penetrant angiotensin IV analog whose proposed action is potentiating central HGF/c-Met signaling to drive hippocampal dendritic-spine and synapse formation. That effect is confined to neural tissue with a subjective cognitive readout and does not perturb any analyte on a routine serum panel.
Read this before you spend on labs
No routine bloodwork can confirm dihexa is working. Its only claimed endpoints are synaptogenesis in the brain (not sampleable in peripheral blood) and subjective effects (focus, verbal fluency, mood, clarity), none of which move a standard lab. HGF is not a routine orderable test, and even if measured it would not reflect central c-Met activity or any cognitive benefit; serum BDNF is research-only. The human evidence behind the HGF/c-Met mechanism itself is thin and has been disputed, so even that pathway is not a reliable thing to track. Assess effect with validated cognitive testing and symptom logs, not blood. (Separately, the c-Met/HGF axis is cancer-associated, a mechanistic safety consideration, not something a routine panel screens for.)
Bottom line
Dihexa has no validated objective readout in any modality, not blood, urine, stool, wearable/sleep, CGM, VO2max, DEXA, or body composition. Its claimed benefit is cognition (focus, verbal fluency, recall), a subjective endpoint with no peripheral biomarker, and its proposed HGF/c-Met synaptogenesis mechanism rests on papers retracted in April 2025 after Washington State University found the underlying figures and data were falsified. No human trial of dihexa itself has ever been run, and the closest clinical analog (fosgonimeton, an AngIV-derived HGF-positive modulator) missed its primary and key secondary endpoints in the phase 2/3 LIFT-AD trial (p=0.7) after an earlier phase 2 failure. The only "tracking" available is validated cognitive testing plus symptom logs, subjective, heavily confounded by placebo and practice/learning effects, and unable to objectively confirm the drug is doing anything. Honest answer: nothing here is objectively trackable.
Logging baseline vs retest is the whole game. The Truth Tracker is our free log for bloodwork, DEXA, genetics, and wearable data, bring your own numbers.
How to track itHistory
First documented human use: No controlled human trial has been completed.
Heads up: this one was not in the July vote, and its review has no date yet
This was NOT among the seven peptides reviewed at the July 23-24, 2026 PCAC meeting. It sits in a later tranche of five (LL-37, GHK-Cu, Dihexa acetate, Melanotan II and PEG-MGF) that FDA says it will bring to the advisory committee before the end of February 2027. As of November 2, 2026, FDA has not set the date or published the Federal Register notice and docket for that meeting, so nothing about it has been heard or voted. The draft enforcement-discretion policy HHS published on October 30 covers six other peptides in the summaries we read and does not name this one (we could not open its appendix). One thing worth being precise about: 'the status is moving' does not mean 'moving toward legal.' Some of these actions tighten access rather than open it, and they can move in different directions for different forms of the same compound. Check both the date and the direction on anything you read.
Checked November 2, 2026 against FDA's meeting page, the Federal Register and press reports of the HHS policy. Verify the current rule, and the direction, before acting.. FDA, PCAC meeting before end of Feb 2027 (date TBD)
- 2012Kawas, Wright, and Harding at WSU publish the first paper describing angiotensin IV analog binding to HGF and its role in c-Met activation (JPET, PMID 22129598). This becomes the mechanistic foundation for Dihexa's claimed effects.
- 2013McCoy et al. (WSU) publish behavioral and in vitro synaptogenesis data showing cognitive effects of Dihexa-class molecules in rodents (PMC3533412). This paper receives an Expression of Concern in 2021 and remains published but flagged.
- 2021WSU investigation into co-author Leen Kawas (later CEO of Athira Pharma) finds image manipulation across multiple papers. Kawas resigns as Athira CEO. Four papers earn Expressions of Concern. Athira's Phase 2 Alzheimer's trial continues under new leadership.
- 2022Athira Pharma's ACT-AD Phase 2 trial of fosgonimeton (ATH-1017), the closest human analog to the Dihexa compound class, misses primary and secondary endpoints in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease patients. Mixed exploratory signals noted in monotherapy arm.
- 2024Athira Pharma announces topline results from the larger Phase 2/3 LIFT-AD trial of fosgonimeton (September 3, 2024; published 2025, primary analysis N=287, 26-week randomized placebo-controlled). The trial did not meet its primary endpoint (Global Statistical Test) or key secondary endpoints (ADAS-Cog11, ADCS-ADL23). This is the second consecutive failed human trial for the compound class. Results were presented at CTAD 2024 in October/November 2024.
- 2025Both core Dihexa mechanism papers formally retracted in April 2025 (Kawas 2012 retraction PMID 40312092; Benoist 2014 retraction PMID 40312093) after WSU investigation confirms data fabrication. The biochemical foundation of Dihexa's marketed mechanism is now formally unsupported in peer-reviewed literature.
All sources
- Retraction notice for Benoist et al. 2014 (PMID 40312093), PubMed(Official JPET retraction of the primary mechanistic paper. Confirms data fabrication finding.)
- McCoy et al. 2013 PMC3533412 (Expression of Concern, not retracted)(The only unretracted primary Dihexa paper. Carries a 2021 Expression of Concern. Rodent behavioral and in vitro data only.)
- Fosgonimeton Phase 2 ACT-AD results, NeurologyLive(Human evidence for the compound class. Related HGF mimetic missed primary endpoints in Alzheimer's Phase 2.)
- Retraction Watch coverage of Athira/Kawas investigation(Establishes the research integrity timeline and which papers were flagged.)
- Fosgonimeton in mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease (LIFT-AD), J Alzheimers Dis Rep 2025, PMID 41393340(Second failed human trial for the compound class. Phase 2/3, primary analysis N=287, 26-week RDBPC. Did not meet primary endpoint (GST) or key secondary endpoints (ADAS-Cog11, ADCS-ADL23). Presented at CTAD 2024.)
- McCoy AT et al. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2013;344(1):141-154. PMID 23055539. Carries a 2021 expression of concern (PMID 34551989); the same group's 2012 and 2014 mechanism papers were retracted in April 2025(dose table)
- McCoy AT et al. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2013;344(1):141-154. PMID 23055539. Carries a 2021 expression of concern (PMID 34551989); the same group's 2012 and 2014 mechanism papers were retracted in April 2025(dose table)
- McCoy AT et al. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2013;344(1):141-154. PMID 23055539. Carries a 2021 expression of concern (PMID 34551989); the same group's 2012 and 2014 mechanism papers were retracted in April 2025(dose table)
- FDA, Certain Bulk Drug Substances for Use in Compounding that May Present Significant Safety Risks, content current as of 04/22/2026(dose table)
Not medical advice. Grades reflect the evidence as of the date above and will change as data arrives. Reports from users are anecdote, not proof. Talk to a licensed clinician before you act on anything here.