Acetyl Hexapeptide-8
Argireline (Acetyl Hexapeptide-8) — evidence, uses & the "topical botox" claim

Class: peptide
INCI name: Acetyl Hexapeptide-8
Synonyms: Argireline® (trade name, Lipotec / Lubrizol)
INCI: Acetyl Hexapeptide-8
acetyl hexapeptide-8 amide
formerly (incorrectly) "acetyl hexapeptide-3"
sequence Ac-Glu-Glu-Met-Gln-Arg-Arg-NH₂ (Ac-EEMQRR-NH₂)
Trade names: Argireline
Function tags: skin appearance (cosmetic)
expression lines / dynamic wrinkles
Overall evidence grade: C
WADA prohibited: no
Last updated: 2026-07-12

In brief: Argireline (INCI Acetyl Hexapeptide-8) is a synthetic six-amino-acid cosmetic peptide, a fragment of SNAP-25, popularly marketed as "topical botox." Small human studies suggest a modest reduction in the appearance of expression lines, but the evidence is mixed — the strongest positive trials were manufacturer-funded and an independent 2023 evaluation found no significant effect — and it is doubtful that enough peptide crosses intact skin at cosmetic concentrations to act on muscle. It is a cosmetic ingredient only; it is not botulinum toxin and has never been compared to it head-to-head.

## Identity a synthetic **hexapeptide** (6 amino acids, < 40 aa → peptide), N-acetylated, patterned on the **N-terminal end of SNAP-25** (a SNARE-complex protein and a target of botulinum toxin). Introduced ~2001 by Lipotec (now Lubrizol); the underlying peptide is now off-patent and widely synthesised. ## Development & history - Developed by the Spanish biotech **Lipotec** and introduced around **2001**; the first efficacy report was **Blanes-Mira et al. 2002** (*Int J Cosmet Sci*). It was marketed from the outset on a "topical botox" analogy to botulinum toxin.
- After the underlying peptide's patents lapsed, it became widely available from multiple manufacturers under its INCI name, Acetyl Hexapeptide-8. Lipotec was acquired by **Lubrizol** (2012), which owns the Argireline® trade name. It has only ever been a **cosmetic** ingredient — never developed as a drug. ## Mechanism (as proposed) Ac-EEMQRR-NH₂ mimics the N-terminal of SNAP-25 and is proposed to compete for SNARE-complex assembly, attenuating Ca²⁺-dependent acetylcholine exocytosis at the neuromuscular junction and thereby reducing contraction of facial-expression muscles. This differs fundamentally from botulinum toxin (which enzymatically cleaves SNAP-25 for an irreversible, injected effect). The mechanism is largely characterised in vitro; whether enough peptide crosses intact skin at cosmetic concentrations to act on the NMJ is doubtful.

## Related reading

How the neurotransmitter ("topical Botox") peptides like Argireline fit into a routine — and why this class is the most oversold — in [how to use peptides](/learn/how-to-use-peptides). For where Argireline ranks among the cosmetic peptides by evidence, see [cosmetic peptides ranked by evidence](/learn/best-peptides-for-skin) — and the full investigation of the "does it work?" question in [does Argireline work?](/learn/does-argireline-work).

Evidence grades by outcome:
outcome: Topical: appearance of dynamic/expression wrinkles
grade: C
base: Small human studies — Blanes-Mira 2002; Wang 2013 (~30% wrinkle-depth reduction at 10%)
effect: Modest improvement in some trials
caveat: Mixed: strongest positives manufacturer-funded; an independent 2023 study found no significant reduction; small samples
outcome: Reaching the neuromuscular junction at cosmetic doses (the "muscle-relaxing" premise)
grade: D
base: Penetration data
effect: Doubtful
caveat: Peptide must cross the stratum corneum to reach the NMJ; available data suggest it largely does not at cosmetic concentrations
outcome: "Works like / comparable to Botox"
grade: F
base: None (no head-to-head)
effect: Not demonstrated
caveat: No trial compares it to botulinum toxin; mechanism is fundamentally different (reversible competition vs enzymatic cleavage); marketing overstates the evidence
outcome: Safety (topical)
base: CIR Expert Panel assessment; broad cosmetic use
effect: Well tolerated, non-irritating
caveat: Regarded as safe as used; suitable for sensitive skin

Legal status:
region: EU
status: Lawful cosmetic
note: a lawful cosmetic ingredient (EU Regulation (EC) 1223/2009; US cosmetic law), sold over-the-counter worldwide. No injectable or "research" version, no drug filing (no NDA/IND). Straightforwardly sellable as a cosmetic — the constraint is the claims, not the legality of sale.

Cosmetic claims:
allowed: helps reduce the **appearance** of expression lines
for smoother-looking skin around the eyes and forehead
targets the **look** of fine lines
forbidden: topical botox
botox in a jar
botox alternative
relaxes muscles
inhibits muscle contraction
reduces neurotransmitter/acetylcholine release
freezes wrinkles
by function
the proposed mechanism

Note: Purely cosmetic — the sharpest claims case. Argireline has no injectable/research lane; it is only a cosmetic ingredient. But it is the most aggressively "botox-marketed" peptide in the category, so this entry is the clearest demonstration of where the legal claim line sits.

Sources:
Blanes-Mira C, et al. A synthetic hexapeptide (Argireline) with antiwrinkle activity. Int J Cosmet Sci. 2002.
Wang Y, et al. (Manufacturer-funded clinical evaluation of acetyl hexapeptide-8 for wrinkles.) 2013.
Independent evaluation (2023) reporting no significant wrinkle reduction — cite specific study before publishing.
Lim S-H, et al. Enhanced skin permeation of anti-wrinkle peptides via molecular modification. (penetration limits.) PMC5785486.
Public interest in acetyl hexapeptide-8: longitudinal analysis. PMC10915729.
Cosmetic Ingredient Review (CIR) Expert Panel safety assessment — acetyl hexapeptide-8 amide.