Region — US. Neutral scientific reference — not offered for sale here.
Explore /
SNAP-8 (Acetyl Octapeptide-3) Research reference — not for sale
SNAP-8 (Acetyl Octapeptide-3)
Peptide
also called — SNAP-8 · INCI: Acetyl Octapeptide-3 · an elongated version of Argireline (Acetyl Hexapeptide-8)
skin appearance (cosmetic)expression lines / dynamic wrinkles
Cosmetic — the "next-generation Argireline," with thinner evidence than its parent. Same SNARE/SNAP-25 mechanism and the same "botox" claim minefield as Argireline (#27), but marketed as more potent. The honest twist: its headline numbers are manufacturer-only, and Argireline actually has the larger
In brief
SNAP-8 (Acetyl Octapeptide-3) is an elongated version of Argireline that works through the same SNARE / SNAP-25 mechanism and is marketed as a more potent "topical botox." Its headline figures — "up to ~63% wrinkle-depth reduction," "~30% more active than Argireline" — come from manufacturer studies; there is essentially no independent standalone RCT, and, notably, Argireline itself has the larger and more independent evidence base. Reaching the neuromuscular junction through intact skin is doubtful. It is a cosmetic ingredient only — not botulinum toxin.
Legal standing, by region
European Union
Lawful cosmetic
a lawful cosmetic ingredient (EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009; US cosmetic law), sold over-the-counter worldwide. No injectable/research lane. Sellable as a cosmetic — the constraint is the claims.
Evidence, by outcome
An honest grade per outcome — drawn from the evidence, not any catalogue. Hype and undemonstrated marketing claims grade low.
OutcomeEvidence base · effectGrade
Topical: appearance of expression lines
Manufacturer-dominated; no independent standalone RCT; the ~63% figure is not independently replicated
Manufacturer in-vivo (Lipotec, n=17, 10%, 28 days, "~63%") + in-vitro SNARE assays · Manufacturer-reported improvement
C"~30% more active than Argireline"
A manufacturer claim; Argireline has the larger independent evidence base — "newer/more potent" ≠ better-evidenced
Manufacturer in-vitro/in-vivo comparison · Claimed
DReaching the neuromuscular junction at cosmetic doses
Same stratum-corneum barrier as Argireline
Penetration considerations · Doubtful
D"Works like Botox"
No trial vs botulinum toxin; mechanism is different (reversible competition) and much weaker
None (no head-to-head) · Not demonstrated
FSafety (topical)
Regarded as safe as used
Broad cosmetic use · Well tolerated
—Cosmetic claims boundary
✓ Allowed (appearance / feel)
- helps reduce the **appearance** of expression lines
- for smoother-looking skin around the eyes and forehead.
✕ Not allowed (medicinal)
- topical botox
- botox alternative
- relaxes muscles
- reduces acetylcholine / neurotransmitter release
The medicinal-sounding science stays in the reference section; product copy speaks only to appearance/feel (Reg 655/2013). Different fields, never merged.
Identity a synthetic octapeptide (8 amino acids, < 40 aa → peptide) patterned on the N-terminal end of SNAP-25, with two extra amino acids added to Argireline's hexapeptide to extend coverage of the SNAP-25 target region. ## Development & history - Developed by the Spanish biotech Lipotec (Barcelona; now Lubrizol Life Science) — the same company that made Argireline — as its "next-generation" extension. Adding alanine + aspartate to Argireline's sequence was intended to improve binding to the SNARE complex, and Lipotec reported it ~30% more active than Argireline in the company's own in-vitro/in-vivo testing.
- Genericised and now widely used, often paired with Argireline, Leuphasyl or Matrixyl in serums. Like Argireline, it has only ever been a cosmetic ingredient, never a drug. ## Mechanism (as proposed) like Argireline, SNAP-8 mimics the N-terminal of SNAP-25 and is proposed to compete for SNARE-complex assembly, reducing Ca²⁺-dependent acetylcholine release at the neuromuscular junction and thus facial-muscle contraction. This differs fundamentally from botulinum toxin (which enzymatically cleaves SNAP-25). The evidence is largely in vitro / manufacturer-derived, and whether enough peptide crosses intact skin at cosmetic concentrations to act on the NMJ is doubtful.
Sources — 3 cited
01Lipotec / Lubrizol manufacturer documentation — in-vitro SNARE-competition assay and in-vivo periocular study (n=17, 10%, 28 days).
02(No independent standalone RCT of SNAP-8 has been published — cite one only if it appears.)
03Blanes-Mira C, et al. (2002) — the foundational Argireline SNARE-inhibition work the class rests on.
Review status
Not yet reviewed
A credentialed reviewer (PharmD / PhD / MD) will be named before this entry is finalised. Until then, treat it as a working draft. Last updated July 2026.
Grades reflect the published evidence, not our interest. No dosing, reconstitution, or administration is published for research compounds — that restraint is deliberate.
VallydiaA neutral reference and a lawful-lane shop. Registered in Spain. Information for those who seek it — never promotion.
Region — United States
This site provides neutral scientific reference and sells only products lawful in your region. Nothing here is medical advice, a recommendation, or an offer to supply unapproved medicines. No dosing or administration is published for research compounds. Cosmetic peptides per Regulation (EC) 1223/2009. Unapproved injectable peptides are neither sold nor advertised in the EU (Directive 2001/83/EC, Title VIII). © 2026 Vallydia SL — Registered in Spain.