Snap-8

Origin and structure

SNAP-8 is the trade name of acetyl octapeptide-3, a chain of eight amino acids (glutamic acid, glutamic acid, methionine, glutamine, arginine, arginine, alanine, aspartic acid) with an acetyl group capping the start and an amide group the end: Ac-Glu-Glu-Met-Gln-Arg-Arg-Ala-Asp-NH2. Its formula is C41H70N16O16S and its molar mass 1,075.2 g/mol. The first six amino acids are exactly those of Argireline, the older cosmetic peptide known as acetyl hexapeptide-8 or acetyl hexapeptide-3; SNAP-8 adds alanine and aspartic acid at the end.

Both sequences are copied from a stretch near the start (the N-terminal end) of SNAP-25, a protein in nerve endings. Argireline was described in 2002 by researchers at the Miguel Hernández University in Alicante, Spain, as the outcome of a programme to design a non-toxic peptide that would mimic the wrinkle-smoothing action of botulinum toxin. SNAP-8 is the longer version of the same idea from the ingredient maker Lipotec; the ingredient is now sold by Lubrizol.

On ingredient lists it appears as acetyl octapeptide-3, the name used in CosIng, the European Commission's database of cosmetic ingredients. Chemical databases also list it as acetyl octapeptide-1 and as acetyl glutamyl heptapeptide-3, so all three names can refer to the same peptide.

How it is thought to work

A nerve tells a muscle to contract by releasing acetylcholine from tiny vesicles. To fuse with the cell membrane and empty, those vesicles need the SNARE complex, a bundle of proteins of which SNAP-25 is one. Botulinum toxin type A cuts SNAP-25, so the signal stops and the muscle relaxes. Argireline and SNAP-8 copy a short piece of SNAP-25 and are meant to compete with it while the complex assembles, so that less signal is released; unlike the toxin, they do not cut anything.

For Argireline this was shown in laboratory experiments: it reduced the release of neurotransmitters with a potency similar to botulinum toxin A, but with a much smaller maximum effect (Blanes-Mira et al., 2002). For SNAP-8 the only such data are the manufacturer's own, as summarised in a 2020 review: 43% less glutamate released at a concentration of 1.5 mM, roughly 1.6 mg per millilitre. We found no independent, peer-reviewed laboratory study of how SNAP-8 acts.

The larger question is whether it gets there at all. The nerve endings that move the facial muscles lie in the muscle, beneath the epidermis and the dermis. When FDA scientists left an emulsion with 10% acetyl hexapeptide-8 (Argireline) on human donor skin for 24 hours, most of it washed off: 0.22% of the applied amount stayed in the outer horny layer, 0.01% reached the living epidermis beneath it, and none was found in the dermis or below (Kraeling et al., 2015). SNAP-8 is larger still, at about 1,075 daltons, and we found no study that measured how much of it passes through human skin. That is one reason why some researchers deliver it with microneedle patches, which make tiny channels in the outer layer.

Is SNAP-8 approved?

Not as a medicine. We found no authorised medicine containing SNAP-8 in the EU, the Netherlands or the United States, and we know of none elsewhere. Its legal home is cosmetics.

In the EU, acetyl octapeptide-3 is listed in CosIng with the functions humectant and skin conditioning, and it appears on none of the Cosmetics Regulation's annexes of banned or restricted substances. Ingredients like this need no approval in advance, but every finished cosmetic must have a safety assessment and be notified in the EU's CPNP portal before it goes on sale; in the Netherlands the NVWA supervises this. The regulation defines a cosmetic as a product for the outer parts of the body, such as the skin, or for the teeth and mouth, and states that anything intended to be injected is not a cosmetic.

In the United States SNAP-8 is not an approved drug. Cosmetic products and ingredients, other than colour additives, need no FDA approval before they go on sale. What decides the category is the intended use: a product meant to affect the structure or a function of the body is a drug under US law, even if it also changes how someone looks.

In sport SNAP-8 is not named on the WADA Prohibited List. Class S0 prohibits at all times any pharmacological substance that no health authority has approved for human therapeutic use, and the 2027 list, in force from 1 January 2027, names peptides among its examples. The list does not deal with cosmetics that contain such ingredients. The Dopingautoriteit applies the same list in the Netherlands.

What the research shows

Very little about SNAP-8 itself. We found no published study, in people or in animals, that tested SNAP-8 on its own, and ClinicalTrials.gov lists no trial of it. What exists is manufacturer data that never appeared in a scientific journal, and a handful of skin studies of products in which SNAP-8 was one of several active ingredients.

• Manufacturer data, older claims: a 2020 review quotes the manufacturer's website for an average reduction in wrinkles of 35% and a maximum of 62%. The review gives no number of volunteers, concentration or comparison, and the study behind these figures has not been published.
• Manufacturer data, current solution: in a split-face test cited by Colgate-Palmolive researchers in 2023, a cream with 3% of a solution containing 0.05% acetyl octapeptide-3, applied twice a day for 28 days, made wrinkles shallower by 7.1% on average and by up to 38%. The number of volunteers is not given, and this test has not appeared in a journal either.
• Shin et al., South Korea, 2024: 24 adults with wrinkles around the eyes wore a dissolving microneedle patch with 0.03% SNAP-8, a vitamin C derivative and cyclic lysophosphatidic acid beside one eye, and a patch of hyaluronic acid only beside the other; 21 finished the 28 days. By day 28 all five skin-roughness measures had improved significantly more on the SNAP-8 side, and no side effects were seen. The paper does not say whether the sides were assigned at random or the assessments blinded, the effect of SNAP-8 cannot be separated from that of the other two ingredients, and the work was supported by the company Raphas.
• Single-group studies: in a 12-week study funded by Colgate-Palmolive and PCA Skin, 31 women who used a serum with a proprietary blend that included acetyl octapeptide-3 had less severe wrinkles at the end, as rated by a dermatologist. At least one other single-group study, of a microneedle patch that held it together with several other actives, is of the same kind. Without a comparison group and with many other ingredients, they show what a product did, not what SNAP-8 did.
• Not studied: injection, any use other than on the skin, and long-term safety.

SNAP-8 versus Argireline

The two rest on the same idea, and SNAP-8 differs only by the two amino acids at its end. Argireline has the larger and more independent body of research, and its results are mixed:

• Blanes-Mira et al., 2002: an emulsion with 10% Argireline reduced wrinkle depth by up to 30% after 30 days in healthy women; the authors also reported no toxicity when it was given by mouth and no primary skin irritation at high doses.
• Wang et al., 2013: in a randomised, placebo-controlled study, 60 Chinese adults applied Argireline or placebo (in a 3:1 ratio) around the eyes twice a day for four weeks. Investigators rated 48.9% of the Argireline group as improved against none of the placebo group, and skin-replica roughness fell only with Argireline.
• Henseler, 2023: in a double-blind study in 19 women, one side of the face received a hyaluronic-acid serum with Argireline and the other the same serum without it, for four weeks. Wrinkle scores fell slightly on both sides, with no significant difference between them.
• Kraeling et al., 2015: on human donor skin, almost none of an emulsion with 10% Argireline got past the outer horny layer, which raises the same delivery question for the larger SNAP-8.
• SNAP-8 against Argireline: we found no published study comparing the two directly, so whether the two extra amino acids make any difference in people is unknown. Results for Argireline cannot simply be carried over to SNAP-8.

Frequently asked questions

What is the difference between SNAP-8 and Argireline?

SNAP-8 (acetyl octapeptide-3) is Argireline (acetyl hexapeptide-8) with two more amino acids, alanine and aspartic acid, at the end; both copy part of the nerve protein SNAP-25. Argireline has been tested in a few independent studies with mixed results, among them a placebo-controlled study in 60 people that favoured it and a double-blind split-face study in 19 women that found no difference. SNAP-8 has no published study of its own, and no study has compared the two directly.

Does SNAP-8 work like Botox?

Only on paper. Botulinum toxin is injected into the muscle and cuts SNAP-25, which blocks the nerve signal. SNAP-8 goes on the skin and is meant to compete with SNAP-25 rather than cut it; for SNAP-8 that action has only been shown in the manufacturer's own laboratory tests, and in the lab its relative Argireline had a much smaller maximum effect than the toxin. Whether it reaches the nerve endings in the facial muscles at all has not been measured, and Argireline, which is smaller, barely got past the outer layer of donor skin.

Is SNAP-8 legal in the Netherlands?

As a cosmetic ingredient, yes: acetyl octapeptide-3 is listed in the EU ingredient database CosIng and is not banned or restricted, and a cream or serum containing it is legal if the product meets the Cosmetics Regulation, which the NVWA enforces in the Netherlands. It is not a medicine, so it may not be sold or advertised as a treatment, and a product meant for injection is never a cosmetic. Buying and selling it as research material is a different status, which our guide on research-use-only products in the Netherlands explains.

Is SNAP-8 banned in sport?

It is not named on the WADA Prohibited List. Class S0 prohibits at all times any pharmacological substance without approval for human therapeutic use, and from 1 January 2027 the list names peptides explicitly as an example; SNAP-8 has no such approval. The list does not deal with cosmetics that contain it, so athletes in doubt can ask the Dopingautoriteit, which applies the WADA list in the Netherlands.

Is SNAP-8 safe?

That has not been established. In the small skin studies of products that contained it, no side effects linked to the product were reported, but no study has examined the safety of SNAP-8 on its own and we found no published toxicology study. Injection has never been studied in people, so its safety by that route is unknown.

Storage and handling

Store according to product-label instructions and batch handling notes. Lyophilized research peptides are commonly kept dry, protected from light, and handled with clean laboratory technique.

References

Checked against these sources on 28 October 2026.

Related peptides