Acetyl Octapeptide-3
SNAP-8 (Acetyl Octapeptide-3) — evidence, the "more potent than Argireline" claim & status

Class: peptide
INCI name: Acetyl Octapeptide-3
Synonyms: SNAP-8
INCI: Acetyl Octapeptide-3
an elongated version of Argireline (Acetyl Hexapeptide-8)
Trade names: SNAP-8
Function tags: skin appearance (cosmetic)
expression lines / dynamic wrinkles
Overall evidence grade: C
WADA prohibited: no
Last updated: 2026-07-20

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.

## 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.

## Related reading

How the neurotransmitter ("topical Botox") peptides like SNAP-8 fit into a routine — and why this class is the most oversold — in [how to use peptides](/learn/how-to-use-peptides). For where SNAP-8 ranks among the cosmetic peptides by evidence, see [cosmetic peptides ranked by evidence](/learn/best-peptides-for-skin) — and the head-to-head with its parent peptide in [SNAP-8 vs Argireline](/learn/snap-8-vs-argireline).

Evidence grades by outcome:
outcome: Topical: appearance of expression lines
grade: C
base: Manufacturer in-vivo (Lipotec, n=17, 10%, 28 days, "~63%") + in-vitro SNARE assays
effect: Manufacturer-reported improvement
caveat: Manufacturer-dominated; no independent standalone RCT; the ~63% figure is not independently replicated
outcome: "~30% more active than Argireline"
grade: D
base: Manufacturer in-vitro/in-vivo comparison
effect: Claimed
caveat: A manufacturer claim; Argireline has the larger independent evidence base — "newer/more potent" ≠ better-evidenced
outcome: Reaching the neuromuscular junction at cosmetic doses
grade: D
base: Penetration considerations
effect: Doubtful
caveat: Same stratum-corneum barrier as Argireline
outcome: "Works like Botox"
grade: F
base: None (no head-to-head)
effect: Not demonstrated
caveat: No trial vs botulinum toxin; mechanism is different (reversible competition) and much weaker
outcome: "Up to 63% reduction in wrinkle depth" headline magnitude
grade: D
base: Marketing claim
caveat: Wrinkle depth was measured, but only in a single manufacturer-run periocular study of 17 subjects at 10% peptide over 28 days; no independent group has reproduced the figure, and the concentration tested is far above what finished cosmetics contain
outcome: Safety (topical)
base: Broad cosmetic use
effect: Well tolerated
caveat: Regarded as safe as used

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/research lane. Sellable as a cosmetic — the constraint is the claims.

Cosmetic claims:
allowed: helps reduce the **appearance** of expression lines
for smoother-looking skin around the eyes and forehead.
forbidden: topical botox
botox alternative
relaxes muscles
reduces acetylcholine / neurotransmitter release

Note: 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, more independent evidence base.

Sources:
Lipotec / Lubrizol manufacturer documentation — in-vitro SNARE-competition assay and in-vivo periocular study (n=17, 10%, 28 days).
(No independent standalone RCT of SNAP-8 has been published — cite one only if it appears.)
Blanes-Mira C, et al. (2002) — the foundational Argireline SNARE-inhibition work the class rests on.