Matrixyl 3000 contains palmitoyl tripeptide-1 and palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7. The original Matrixyl contains palmitoyl pentapeptide-4. Those are three different molecules and the overlap between the two products is zero. It is unusual for two names separated by a number to share nothing at all.
Confusion here is understandable. Both names belong to the same manufacturer, both are sold for the same purpose, and the number implies a sequel. A sequel usually contains the original.
What is actually in Matrixyl 3000?
Matrixyl 3000 contains two peptides, and neither is the one in the original. The manufacturer technical file for Matrixyl 3000 lists the composition in this order: Glycerin, Aqua (Water), Butylene Glycol, Carbomer, Polysorbate 20, Palmitoyl Oligopeptide, Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-7.1 Dashes separate those names in the original, and the names themselves are as printed. Palmitoyl Oligopeptide is the superseded INCI name for the peptide now called palmitoyl tripeptide-1, so the same blend turns up under two different names across supplier documents.
The same document names the two peptide sequences directly: "Pal-Gly-His-Lys y Pal-Gly-Gln-Pro-Arg."1 That document is in Spanish, and that one line is the whole answer. Pal-Gly-His-Lys is a palmitoylated three-residue chain, so its INCI name is palmitoyl tripeptide-1. Pal-Gly-Gln-Pro-Arg is four residues, so the other is palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7. Residue counts give the peptides their names.
Nothing in that list is five residues long.
Sederma publishes the same blend in English, and that document is fuller. It gives the INCI line as "Glycerin (and) Water (Aqua) (and) Butylene Glycol (and) Carbomer (and) Polysorbate-20 (and) Palmitoyl Tripeptide-1 (and) Palmitoyl Tetrapeptide-7," using the current name where the Spanish sheet uses the superseded one.2 It also describes what the material physically is: "100 ppm of Palmitoyl-GHK and 50 ppm of Palmitoyl GQPR (synthetic peptides) in a preservative-free hydroglycolic solution," with "Solubility: water soluble."2 So Matrixyl 3000 is not a powder. It is a water-based solution that a manufacturer stirs into a cream at a stated percentage.
Those two documents agree on the chemistry and differ on how much they tell you. Palmitoyl-GHK is the Pal-Gly-His-Lys of the Spanish line and Palmitoyl GQPR is the Pal-Gly-Gln-Pro-Arg, so the sequences cross-check between languages. The Spanish file carries a 2006 copyright and the English one carries 05/2015/V9. Nine years between them explains the gap better than any disagreement does.
Order matters in that line as well. Glycerin leads it, water follows, and the two peptides come last of the seven ingredients.1 Anyone expecting a peptide product to be mostly peptide is reading the wrong kind of document, and Sederma conceals nothing here. It is a formulation sheet written for people who make creams.
What is in the original Matrixyl?
A single peptide in the original Matrixyl, five residues long, with a different sequence entirely. Its INCI name is palmitoyl pentapeptide-4, and the sequence usually written for it is Pal-KTTKS: lysine, threonine, threonine, lysine, serine, with a palmitic acid tail.
The European industry ingredient registry lists palmitoyl pentapeptide-4 as a recognized INCI name with the declared function "SKIN CONDITIONING," defined as "Maintains the skin in good condition."3 The registry explains the prefix in general terms, noting that "the name component 'palmitoyl' means that the ingredient contains, as fatty acid component, amongst others, palmitic acid (hexadecanoic acid)."3 It does not connect the INCI name to any trade name, and no registry does. Registries catalog molecules and manufacturers choose brands.
I could not verify the Matrixyl-to-palmitoyl-pentapeptide-4 mapping in a manufacturer document this session. The mapping is uncontested across the ingredient literature and both our Matrixyl compound page and its pricing page carry it, but the tier matters and it is not the same tier as the Matrixyl 3000 composition above.
Do the two products share any peptide?
No peptide appears in both. Palmitoyl pentapeptide-4 does not appear anywhere in the Matrixyl 3000 composition, and neither palmitoyl tripeptide-1 nor palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7 turns up in the original. Brand and purpose relate these products. Contents do not.
Residue by residue the gap is total. Original Matrixyl runs lysine, threonine, threonine, lysine, serine. The 3000 carries glycine, histidine, lysine in one peptide and glycine, glutamine, proline, arginine in the other.1 No position matches across the two products, and the lengths differ as well, five against three and four. Peptides are sequences, so a different sequence is a different molecule with a different shape and a different target.
A product called Matrixyl 3000 that contained the original plus two additions would be fairly named. This one shares nothing with the original and carries the name anyway. Anyone reasoning from "3000 is the upgraded Matrixyl" will reach wrong conclusions about which evidence applies to what they bought.
Is there a third product under the same name?
A third product carries the Matrixyl name, and it shares nothing with either of the others. Sederma's technical bulletin for Matrixyl Synthe'6 gives the INCI line as "Glycerin (and) Water (Aqua) and Hydroxypropyl Cyclodextrin (and) Palmitoyl Tripeptide-38" and a "Recommended concentration for use: 2%."4 Its peptide is Palmitoyl-Lysyl-Dioxymethionyl-Lysine, and the bulletin reports its cell work as "5 ppm Pal-KMO2K equiv. to 2% MATRIXYL synthe'6," which puts 250 ppm of peptide in that blend by the same arithmetic as above. A cream at the recommended 2% would carry 5 ppm.
So one trade name covers three peptide sets. Palmitoyl pentapeptide-4 in the original. Palmitoyl tripeptide-1 and palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7 in the 3000. Palmitoyl tripeptide-38 in the Synthe'6. No molecule appears in more than one of them.
Which product did the human trials test?
Human trials cited for Matrixyl were run on the original pentapeptide, not on the 3000. Most products on a shelf carry the 3000, so the mismatch is the normal case instead of an edge case.
The paper people reach for is Robinson and colleagues, "Topical palmitoyl pentapeptide provides improvement in photoaged human facial skin," published in the International Journal of Cosmetic Science in 2005.5 The title names the pentapeptide, so the work sits on the original.
I was not able to read that paper this session. The publisher, the DOI resolver, the public abstract database and one aggregator were all unreachable from here, so the figures our GHK-Cu and Matrixyl comparison and our peptide serum guide both carry for it are not figures I have confirmed. Bibliographic details check out against a database listing. Contents do not, and I would sooner say that than repeat numbers I have not seen.
What did the Matrixyl 3000 study measure?
The Matrixyl 3000 study measured deep wrinkle surface and skin tone in 23 women over two months, against a placebo on the other half of the face. Sederma describes "23 voluntarias de edades comprendidas entre 42 y 67 años" and an "aplicación dos veces al día en medio rostro de una crema conteniendo 3% de Matrixyl®3000."1
The reported results, in the manufacturer's own notation, were a change in the surface occupied by deep wrinkles of "Superficie ocupada por arrugas profundas - 39,4**" against a placebo figure of "4,3ns," and a skin tone change of "Tono de la piel +15,5**" against "6,5ns."1 In that notation the asterisks mark statistical significance and "ns" marks a result that was not significant. Commas serve as decimal separators throughout, so those figures read as 39.4 and 15.5 percent.
A second study in the same file, on the papillary dermis, used "28 voluntarias con edades comprendidas entre 51 a 72 años" and reported improvements in dermal fiber network density ranging from "+13,9%/T0 hasta +54%" at "p<0,01," with "71% de las voluntarias muestran mejora."1
A third study in the same file worked on skin explants, described as a "Cuantificación de las proteínas de constitución, anclaje y cohesión de la dermis" on tissue from ten donors aged "de 30 a 66 años."1 That is laboratory work on excised tissue instead of a measurement on a living person, and it sits in its own block as a separate line of support.
Sederma produced these figures for its own ingredient. None of that makes them wrong. It does mean the 3000 and the original have different evidence behind them, produced by different parties, and that treating the two as one ingredient merges two evidence bases that were never pooled.
What did the manufacturer measure on the forearm?
Forearm skin produced the age figure that gets quoted, on a different body site from the wrinkle study. At two months the forearm block reports improvement in "93% de voluntarias" on one forearm aspect and "86% de voluntarias" on the other, and states a "Reducción de edad -3,8 años" for the first and "-5,5 años" for the second.1
Those are the numbers behind any claim that this ingredient takes years off. Two features of them deserve stating. Measurement site is the first. Forearm skin carried these numbers, while the half-face wrinkle study was a separate experiment on a separate group, so the two results do not stack. And an age reduction expressed in years is a derived figure, converted from a measured skin property against some age reference, carrying whatever assumptions that reference carries. No conversion accompanies them.
Did any of these results miss significance?
One measurement missed significance, and that line sits alongside the others. Work on senescent fibroblasts used "Matrixyl®3000 eq al 5%" and reported "SA β-galactosidasa (fluorescencia).....-56%, p<0,01" and "Progerina (RNA)....-27%, p<0,05," followed by "Lámina A (RNA) ....+4%, ns."1 That third line is marked not significant in its own notation.
Placebo arms in the face study carry the same mark, "4,3ns" and "6,5ns," which is the normal and expected result for a placebo.1 A technical file printing its own null result is behaving better than most of the marketing built on top of it. The same standard has to apply to the favorable lines, and the two significant results above are favorable findings produced by an interested party.
What a null line tells you depends on the measure it sits beside. Two markers moved and one did not, in a single experiment on cultured cells. That is a mixed result from one block of laboratory work and not a verdict on the ingredient. Reporting all three is what makes the block readable at all. A file that printed only the two would leave no way to tell a clean result from a selected one.
Why does palmitoyl tripeptide-1 matter if you use copper peptides?
Palmitoyl tripeptide-1 matters to anyone using copper peptides because it is GHK carrying a fatty tail instead of a copper atom. Its sequence in the manufacturer file is glycine, histidine, lysine.1 Those are the same three residues as the GHK tripeptide at the center of every copper peptide product.
Copper and a palmitoyl tail do different jobs, so the two are not interchangeable, and our guide to GHK and GHK-Cu covers what the copper is thought to contribute. My point here is narrower. Someone using a GHK-Cu serum and a Matrixyl 3000 serum on the theory that they are unrelated actives is applying the same core tripeptide twice, in two different delivery forms. The result may well be fine. Labels do not suggest it is happening.
What does "3% Matrixyl 3000" mean on a label?
A label reading 3% Matrixyl 3000 means 3% of the raw material, and that material is mostly not peptide. Formulation guidance states a use level plainly: "Dosis de uso recomendada: 3%."1 Both numbers refer to the trade-name blend, whose composition list begins with glycerin and water.
The arithmetic does not stop there, because Sederma states the peptide load. The 100 ppm and the 50 ppm quoted earlier add to 150 ppm of peptide in the solution, or 0.015%.2 Multiply that by the recommended 3% and a finished product carries 3 ppm palmitoyl tripeptide-1 and 1.5 ppm palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7. Four and a half parts per million in total, or 0.00045%.
That arithmetic is mine, from the manufacturer's own two figures and its own use level. Nothing about it is hidden, and nothing about it is unusual for a cosmetic active.
None of this criticizes the product. Our guide to what 99% peptide purity actually means hits the mirror image of this on the research side, where a purity figure and a net peptide content are two different numbers on the same vial. Blends are the normal structure of cosmetic actives, and the same applies to almost every peptide blend sold this way. A "3% peptide serum" is still not a serum that is 3% peptide, and the two numbers can differ by orders of magnitude without anybody saying anything untrue.
Does the ingredient list tell you how much peptide you are getting?
An ingredient list will not tell you that, at least not at the level people assume. INCI labeling convention orders ingredients above 1% by descending concentration, and permits any order below 1%. On the Matrixyl 3000 composition, both peptides are listed last, after an emulsifier.1
What that ordering supports is a ceiling, not a measurement. Each peptide sits below 1% of the blend on that reading, and nothing more precise follows from it. Anyone quoting a specific peptide percentage for a finished product is either working from supplier data that is not on the label or estimating.
Getting to a real number would take two figures nobody publishes together. You would need the peptide content of the blend, withheld in the technical sheet, and the blend content of the finished product, a figure rarely printed on a pack. Multiply those and you have an answer. Hold neither and the ingredient list can only tell you which molecules are present and roughly where they sit against the 1% line.
Why was the cell work done above the recommended use level?
Cell work used 5% where the recommended level for a finished formula is 3%. The in vitro section specifies "Matrixyl®3000 eq al 5%" and the formulation guidance says "Dosis de uso recomendada: 3%."1 So the laboratory concentration sits above the level a product is meant to contain.
Two gaps open there at once. Concentration is the first. A formulator gets 3%, the cells got 5%, and the target was senescent fibroblasts in culture instead of skin with an intact barrier. Neither gap makes the cell result false. Both mean a cell result quoted as a skin result has traveled further than the document supports.
Tiers stay apart inside the document itself, and the separation is visible in how it is laid out. Volunteer studies, excised tissue and cultured cells each get their own block with their own counts and their own notation. Whatever gets lost between a technical file and a product claim, the file is not where the flattening happens.
Why do so many sources treat these as one ingredient?
Partly the number, and partly a trade name doing two jobs at once. A brand name is a marketing asset and manufacturers extend them. An INCI name is the regulated identifier, and it changes when the molecule changes.
Our own compound page carried the error until recently. It listed Matrixyl 3000 among the alternative names for palmitoyl pentapeptide-4 while stating elsewhere in its own body text that Matrixyl "should not be confused with Matrixyl 3000 or Matrixyl Synthe'6, which contain different peptides." A page can carry a correct sentence and a contradicting data field at the same time, and ours did.
Data fields propagate in a way prose does not. An alias array feeds search, price aggregation and any page that prints an also-known-as line, so one wrong entry reproduces itself across a site while the careful paragraph three screens down stays where it was written. That asymmetry is why the correction to our compound record had to land before this page did.
What should you check on a product label?
One line on the back settles it: the INCI list, and specifically which peptide names appear in it. A product can say Matrixyl on the front and carry palmitoyl tripeptide-1 and palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7 on the back, and the back is the accurate one.
Most of the weight sits on three things. Peptide INCI names settle which product is in the bottle, where the front of the pack does not. A percentage printed next to it describes the blend, so it is not a peptide figure. Trial evidence belongs to the molecule named in the trial title, and for the most-cited work that molecule is the pentapeptide.
Front-of-pack copy is not the place this gets resolved. The front of the pack is accurate as marketing, and nothing obliges it to tell you which peptides the name currently covers. The ingredient list is the only part of the package that names molecules, and it is the part written to a convention instead of to a brief.
What has not been measured?
Several things have not been measured, and they are the useful part of the picture.
I found no head-to-head trial of the original against the 3000 in the manufacturer file, and I did not find one elsewhere this session. Each carries separate studies run by different parties at different times on different endpoints. Separate studies are not a comparison.
What survives formulation has not been reported. The ppm figures describe the raw material as it leaves Sederma, and none of the three manufacturer documents read for this page states how much peptide remains intact after a brand blends it into a cream at its own pH, holds it on a shelf for two years and puts it through whatever else is in the jar.24 The supplied figure is a starting point, not a delivered dose.
Penetration is the older question underneath all of this. A palmitoyl tail exists to carry a water-loving peptide through a lipid barrier, and how much arrives is formulation-dependent and rarely published for a finished product. Our guide to the three GHK-Cu products runs into the same wall from the copper side.
The combination question is open too. Many products contain both the original and the 3000. Nobody has tested that pairing in a controlled trial, so the reasoning for it is mechanistic.
Common questions
Is Matrixyl 3000 the same as Matrixyl?
No. Matrixyl 3000 contains palmitoyl tripeptide-1 and palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7. The original Matrixyl contains palmitoyl pentapeptide-4. The two products share no peptide, despite the names differing only by a number.
What peptides are in Matrixyl 3000?
Two. The manufacturer technical file lists palmitoyl tripeptide-1 and palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7, and names their sequences as Pal-Gly-His-Lys and Pal-Gly-Gln-Pro-Arg. The rest of the blend is glycerin, water, butylene glycol, carbomer and polysorbate 20.
Is Matrixyl 3000 stronger than Matrixyl?
It is different, not established as stronger. The manufacturer documentation carries no head-to-head trial of the two. Each has separate studies on separate endpoints, run by different parties, and they cannot be compared directly.
Which Matrixyl has human trial evidence?
Both have human studies, but of different kinds. The most-cited independent-journal paper names the pentapeptide, placing it on the original. The 3000 has manufacturer studies on 23 and 28 volunteers reported in its own technical file.
What is palmitoyl tripeptide-1?
A three-residue peptide, glycine-histidine-lysine, carrying a palmitic acid tail. It is one of the two actives in Matrixyl 3000, and its core sequence is the same GHK tripeptide found in copper peptide products.
What is palmitoyl pentapeptide-4?
The INCI name for the peptide in the original Matrixyl. Five residues, usually written Pal-KTTKS, with a palmitic acid tail. The European industry registry lists it with the declared function "SKIN CONDITIONING" and does not connect it to any trade name.
What is palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7?
The second of the two peptides in Matrixyl 3000, named in the manufacturer file as Pal-Gly-Gln-Pro-Arg. Four residues with a palmitic acid tail. It appears nowhere in the original Matrixyl and nowhere in Matrixyl Synthe'6.
Is palmitoyl tripeptide-1 the same as GHK-Cu?
No. Both are built on the GHK tripeptide, but palmitoyl tripeptide-1 carries a fatty acid tail and GHK-Cu carries a copper atom. The attachment is the difference, and the two are not interchangeable.
What is Matrixyl Synthe'6?
A third product under the same trade name, containing palmitoyl tripeptide-38 according to a supplier technical listing. It shares no peptide with the original Matrixyl or with Matrixyl 3000.
Does a 3% Matrixyl 3000 serum contain 3% peptide?
No. The 3% refers to the trade-name blend, and that blend is mostly glycerin and water. Sederma puts 100 ppm of Palmitoyl-GHK and 50 ppm of Palmitoyl GQPR inside it, so 3% of the blend works out to 3 ppm and 1.5 ppm of the two peptides in the finished product.
What is the recommended use level for Matrixyl 3000?
The manufacturer technical file states a recommended use level of 3% in a finished formula. That is a formulation figure for product developers, not an application instruction, and it describes the blend, not the peptides in it.
Can you tell peptide concentration from an ingredient list?
Only loosely. INCI convention orders ingredients above 1% by descending concentration and allows any order below that. Both Matrixyl 3000 peptides are listed last, consistent with each sitting under 1% of the blend.
Are the Matrixyl 3000 study results independent?
No. The 23-volunteer wrinkle study and the 28-volunteer dermis study are reported in the manufacturer's own technical file for its own ingredient. That does not make them wrong, but it is a different evidence tier from an independent trial.
Why is Matrixyl 3000 named that way if it is a different peptide?
Trade names are marketing assets and manufacturers extend them across a product line. The INCI name is the regulated identifier that changes when the molecule changes. In this case the trade name stayed and the molecules did not.
Can you use Matrixyl and Matrixyl 3000 together?
Many products already combine them. No controlled trial has tested the pairing, so the case for it is mechanistic rather than measured, and there is no evidence either way on whether the combination adds anything.
Does Matrixyl 3000 reduce skin age by several years?
The manufacturer file reports a "Reducción de edad -3,8 años" and "-5,5 años" at two months. Both figures are forearm measurements, not facial, they are derived instead of directly observed, and the conversion behind them is nowhere in the technical sheet.
Did all the Matrixyl 3000 laboratory results reach significance?
No. The manufacturer file reports two significant markers in cultured senescent fibroblasts and one that was not, printed as "Lámina A (RNA) ....+4%, ns." Reporting the null line alongside the other two is what makes that block readable.
Was the Matrixyl 3000 cell work done at the recommended strength?
No. The in vitro section specifies "Matrixyl®3000 eq al 5%" while the recommended use level for a finished formula is 3%. The cells were also cultured fibroblasts without a skin barrier, so two gaps separate that result from skin.
Which name should you look for on a label?
The INCI peptide names, not the trade name. Palmitoyl pentapeptide-4 means the original. Palmitoyl tripeptide-1 with palmitoyl tetrapeptide-7 means the 3000. Palmitoyl tripeptide-38 means the Synthe'6.
Sources
- Sederma (Croda). Technical file, Matrixyl® 3000. Document in Spanish, copyright line dated 2006. Read via a distributor's hosted copy of the manufacturer document, not from the manufacturer's own site. Quoted for the INCI composition line using the superseded name Palmitoyl Oligopeptide, the two peptide sequences, the 3% recommended use level, the "Formulación: Hidrosoluble" line, the 23-volunteer half-face wrinkle study with its deep-wrinkle and skin-tone figures, and the 28-volunteer papillary dermis study. This document states no peptide concentration inside the blend. An earlier version of this page treated that silence as the manufacturer's position; source 2 shows it is a gap in this document alone, and the claim has been corrected. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9 ↩10 ↩11 ↩12 ↩13 ↩14 ↩15
- Sederma (Croda). Technical bulletin, MATRIXYL® 3000, English. Printed codes "05/2015/V9" and "02/20 PSC TB 26770 25 V2 EN". Read via a hosted copy of the manufacturer document, not from the manufacturer's own site. Quoted for the current INCI line naming Palmitoyl Tripeptide-1, the description "100 ppm of Palmitoyl-GHK and 50 ppm of Palmitoyl GQPR (synthetic peptides) in a preservative-free hydroglycolic solution," the "Solubility: water soluble" line and the 3% recommended use level. The parts-per-million figures for a finished product are this page's arithmetic on those two figures and that use level, and are labeled as such above. ↩1 ↩2 ↩3 ↩4
- Sederma (Croda). Technical bulletin, MATRIXYL® synthe'6®, English. Printed code "06/2015/V2". Read via a hosted copy of the manufacturer document, not from the manufacturer's own site. Quoted for the INCI line, the peptide name Palmitoyl-Lysyl-Dioxymethionyl-Lysine, the "Recommended concentration for use: 2%" line, the "Solubility: Water soluble" line and the in vitro line "5 ppm Pal-KMO2K equiv. to 2% MATRIXYL® synthe'6®". The 250 ppm figure is this page's arithmetic on that line. An earlier version of this page cited a materials-database listing for this product and reported that no use level was given; the manufacturer's own bulletin gives one, and that claim has been corrected. ↩1 ↩2
- Robinson LR, Fitzgerald NC, et al. Topical palmitoyl pentapeptide provides improvement in photoaged human facial skin. International Journal of Cosmetic Science, 2005. Not read. Bibliographic details confirmed against a database listing only. The publisher site, the DOI resolver, the public abstract database and one aggregator were all unreachable from this environment, so no figure on this page comes from this paper. It is cited for the fact that the title names the pentapeptide. ↩1