TL;DR

Will West, Co-founder and CEO of Tesseract Life Sciences, describes stabilized peptide ingredients as an entire business model that changes how a brand manages its balance sheet, working capital and material throughput. Chief Marketing Officer Ulli Lindauer argues that peptides are not a commodity today. She points to a practitioner case study in which S-acetyl glutathione with cyclodextrin inclusion was associated with about a 68% average increase in blood glutathione levels across more than 30 patients.

• Tesseract uses cyclodextrin inclusion to turn peptides such as GHK-Cu and BPC-157 into fine flowing powders. The goal is the best possible shelf life before they enter gummy, melt or sublingual strip manufacturing.
• Because the inventory lasts longer, brands can manufacture larger campaigns and get scale pricing.
• Will West frames stabilized peptide ingredients as a business decision as well as a product decision. In his view, it affects the balance sheet, income statement, working capital and material throughput.
• Ulli Lindauer says that, with the exception of maybe one or two, peptides are not a commodity. They are grown in reactors, and more complex peptides take longer and cost more.
• Longer shelf life from cyclodextrin inclusion means a company does not have to write off its inventory every six months because the peptides are no longer functional.
• Published studies cited by Ulli Lindauer put liposomal glutathione at a maximum of about 40% and an average of 11 to 12% over non-encapsulated glutathione. A practitioner case study of Tesseract’s cyclodextrin S-acetyl glutathione reported a 200% maximum and about a 68% average increase.

How do stabilized peptide powders change shelf life for brands?

Will West: The goal here is to be informative for people who are searching for answers. This is not intended to be a commercial, but this is an area where we specialize: the ability to protect the peptides. We take items, whether it’s GHK-Cu, the copper peptide, or BPC-157 or others that are already extremely popular, and we do cyclodextrin inclusions, and we work with them and turn them into fine flowing powders. Our sole goal is to give them the best possible shelf life so that when they’re introduced into the manufacturing process for these other formats, they have as much protection as they can possibly have. They have as much stability as they can possibly have, and, therefore, the maximum shelf life that can be achieved is available to the brand so that they can go through that transformation to a finished product, whether that’s a gummy, a melt, a sublingual strip, etcetera. And, therefore, the brand has a reasonable amount of time with their supply chain to work with those products.

Still, we don’t recommend overloading shelves, but our experience right now is that there’s so much demand. There’s so much inventory turnover. Brands are not likely to be stuck with products. But what we do offer them is a better opportunity to manufacture at scale and get scale pricing. They can be confident that while they’re moving a lot of product, they can manufacture larger campaigns, get better pricing, and know that the inventory is going to last longer because of the way it’s manufactured and the powders with which they’re starting.

Why is peptide delivery technology a business decision?

Will West: It’s an entire business model for the brand. It allows them a completely different view of how to manage their balance sheet, their income statement, their working capital, their material throughput, and so on. So it’s a business decision in addition to being a product decision, which gives them marketplace opportunities. It gives them partnership opportunities. It allows the entire management team to come together around a toolset that they wouldn’t otherwise have.

In addition to that, the intellectual property suite that’s offered gives them the ability to tell a great story in the market around what they’re able to offer, relative to the, I dare say, pedestrian products that are flooding the market already, though it’s the early days. The ability to create differentiated products that do interesting things with a technology platform that spans a variety of form factors, and form factors yet to come, is quite different because that’s a strategic dimension that isn’t otherwise available.

Are peptides a commodity ingredient today?

Ulli Lindauer: The question is always: when does something become a commodity? But I will venture out on a limb here and say that currently peptides, with the exception of maybe one or two, are not a commodity. They are largely so incredibly expensive because they are grown in reactors, and it’s a very long process. And the more complex a peptide, the more amino acid chains make up the actual peptide, the longer it takes and the more expensive it gets.

The high value conversation is quite logical when we think about what peptides are. They are expensive. They are extremely fragile. They have a very short shelf life, and they lose their efficacy for the person who consumes them one way or another very quickly. So we’ll explain the business risk that is inherent with purchasing large quantities of peptides. Longer shelf life with the cyclodextrin inclusion protection of the peptides leads to a fantastic advantage. If you don’t have to write off your inventory every six months because the peptides are no longer functional, then that’s really fantastic for a company.

For a consumer, it’s really about how sure can I be that what I pay a lot of money for actually works the way it’s supposed to work, that my body can use as much as possible of it. Ideally, it not only works, but I can trust the source. I can trust the safety protocols. I understand the technology. And if it tastes great, it becomes a very easy decision.

What does the S-acetyl glutathione case study show?

Ulli Lindauer: This is my very favorite topic. Before we go there, I’m going to explain quickly what the peptide is. It’s S-acetyl glutathione. Glutathione is around in the supplement world. And it’s also a tripeptide. So it has three amino acids in the chain, not as complex as things that have 45, 2,000, or 15,000 amino acids in the actual peptide chain. Glutathione in general is very famous for being extremely poorly absorbed by the body, with very low bioavailability. So, historically, the most favored way to supplement with glutathione, because it’s a peptide, was intravenous administration. You sit on the drip for 45 minutes, and someone comes to stick you with the needle.

There are different versions of possible encapsulation technologies that have been applied to glutathione with the intent of making it more bioavailable and increasing the measurable level of glutathione in the blood of people who are taking it. We know from other published studies that liposomal encapsulation increases the blood level of glutathione. Maybe maximum 40% over not encapsulated, and on average, probably 11 to 12%.

We also have a case study from a practitioner who tested our S-acetyl glutathione with the cyclodextrin inclusion and the enzymatic release agent, and he found a 200% increase at the maximum level and about a 68% increase on average across more than 30 patients. That is roughly five to 10 times higher than what liposomal encapsulation can do for the blood level increase of glutathione. And therefore, we are quite excited about having the opportunity to apply this technology platform not only to glutathione, but to other peptides like copper peptide, BPC-157, TB-500, and so forth.

Edited for length and clarity from a recorded conversation with Will West and Ulli Lindauer.