ArticleCurrent research in toxicology2026
A framework for the safety evaluation of peptides in cosmetics.
Article in Current research in toxicology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the cosmetic industry replaces traditional animal safety studies with next generation risk assessment approaches, the approach to safety substantiation for peptides used in cosmetic products must also evolve. While the need to provide assurances of safety for local and systemic toxicity endpoints remains the same, adoption of bioinformatic tools developed in the food, agricultural biotechnology, and drug development industries may add to the weight of evidence for the safety substantiation of peptides in cosmetics. Here we review the historical development and safety evaluation of peptides utilized in the cosmetic industry and provide a new safety evaluation framework that incorporates six bioinformatic tools. To test the framework, a variety of peptides (palmitoyl hexapeptide-12, caffeoyl hexapeptide-9, palmitoyl pentapeptide-4, amanitin alpha, conotoxin ArlB, bradykinin, and enkephaline) are evaluated with NCBI BLASTp, ToxinPred3.0, Peptipedia, BIOPEP-UWM, AllerCatPro 2.0, and IEDB bioinformatic tools. The results correctly identified safety concerns (toxins) for amanitin and conotoxin peptides and the biological actions of bradykinin and enkephaline, while palmitoyl hexapeptide-12, caffeoyl hexapeptide-9, and palmitoyl pentapeptide-4 demonstrated sequence homology with extracellular matrix proteins in the skin (collagen, elastin, fibronectin) without the safety concerns of the other peptides. The incorporation of bioinformatic tools into the safety framework provides an additional means to screen for toxins and allergens as well as insights into potential biological activities when sequence homology with existing proteins and peptides occurs. Further testing of the framework by the cosmetic industry is needed to lend support and reveal opportunities for refinements that advance the safety substantiation of peptides.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.