← Library

bioregulator · immune

Vilon

Animal draft

A synthetic dipeptide (Lys-Glu) developed as the defined-sequence counterpart to the thymic extract Thymalin, and presented as an immune-system bioregulator. At two residues it is among the smallest substances ever proposed as a tissue-specific gene regulator, which is both the interesting part of the claim and the hardest part to accept. Nearly all of its evidence is rodent work from a single institute.

Sequence
KE

Lys-Glu · 2 residues · 275.30 Da (computed)

Lysine at position 1 (terminal).

verified C11H21N3O5 275.30 Da (published)
Khavinson lineage

Bioregulator context

Target tissue: thymus (immune)

That a two-residue peptide derived from thymic tissue can restore age-related decline in immune function, and more broadly that peptides this short carry enough information to regulate transcription in the tissue they came from.

Proposed to enter the nucleus and interact with promoter regions directly, altering gene expression in a tissue-specific manner. A 2002 mouse-heart microarray study is the most-cited support for the transcriptional claim.

Claimed vs established

Mechanism

Claimed

Restores age-related immune decline and normalises gene expression through direct interaction with DNA.

Actually established

Changes in gene expression have been reported in mouse tissue following administration. Whether these reflect direct DNA binding, an indirect signalling effect, or an artefact of the microarray methods of the period has not been resolved, and no human immune outcome has been established.

Honest appraisal

How good is the evidence

Animal 0 human RCTs · 0 human trials · 2 animal

The evidence is rodent-level and highly concentrated. Reported effects include inhibition of chemically induced bladder tumours in rats and altered gene expression in mouse heart tissue. There are no human trials in the English-language indexed literature. The gene-expression work dates from 2002 and used DNA-microarray technology of that era, which sets a real ceiling on how confidently it can be read today.

Where this evidence comes from

Both primary studies cited here appeared in the same journal, Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine, and the 2001 tumour study lists Khavinson himself as an author. That is not misconduct, but it is the textbook definition of a result that has not been independently replicated.

What is said vs what was shown

Claims, one at a time

Each claim carries its own evidence tier. A compound is never simply "well studied" — some of its claims may be, others not at all.

ClaimVerdictEvidenceBasis
Restores age-related immune decline untested Mechanistic This is the compound's central marketing claim and its stated design rationale, but no human immune endpoint has been measured in any trial found in the indexed literature.
Inhibits tumour development mixed Animal Reported to inhibit chemically induced urinary bladder tumours in rats, in a study co-authored by the compound's developer and not independently replicated. Carcinogen-induced rodent models translate poorly to human cancer risk in either direction.
Alters gene expression directly mixed Animal Gene-expression changes were observed in mouse heart by DNA microarray. The observation is real; the interpretation that it results from direct peptide-DNA binding is not established by it.
Primary sources

The studies themselves

StudyDesignSubjectsQuality
Inhibitory effect of peptide vilon on the development of induced rat urinary bladder tumors in rats
Pliss GB, Khavinson VK · Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine · 2001 PMID 11586406
animal_uncontrolled / rat — Rats with chemically induced urinary bladder tumours Animal
risk of bias: high
authored by the developer
Studies of the effects of Vilon and Epithalon on gene expression in mouse heart using DNA-microarray technology
Anisimov SV, Anisimov VN · Bulletin of Experimental Biology and Medicine · 2002 PMID 12360356
animal_uncontrolled / mouse — Mouse heart tissue Animal
risk of bias: high
What we do not know
  • No human data of any kind was found in the indexed English-language literature — not even a phase I safety study.
  • Whether a two-residue peptide survives digestion or reaches the nucleus intact in vivo is not established.
  • Whether the reported gene-expression changes are a direct effect or a downstream consequence is unresolved.
  • The Russian-language clinical literature cited for this compound has not been read or assessed for this entry.
  • No dose used in any of the cited studies has been recorded here, because no full text has been read.
Discussion, not evidence

What people actually report

Read this differently from everything above. Public posts from Reddit and X. Nothing here has been verified beyond confirming the post exists, and community reports are the weakest tier this site recognises. Doses discussed in these threads are deliberately not reproduced.
  • claims about gene expression in immune cells
  • comparison with Testagen
  • discussion within Soviet-era bioregulator overviews

What people keep asking

  • How does Vilon compare with Testagen?
  • What evidence is discussed for effects on gene expression in immune cells?