Sangon Biotech

Sangon Biotech (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (trading as SGN; sangonbio.com) is a life-science reagent and peptide supplier trading as SGN from Shanghai, China, incorporated in 2004, whose catalogue spans research peptides alongside a broader range of laboratory reagents.^[1][2]

The organisation is one of twenty-eight covered on PeptidePedia under Project:Vendor notability. Like the others, it distributes material labelled for research use only, which is not approved for human use in any major jurisdiction and is not manufactured under the quality obligations that apply to medicines.^[3]

This article describes what is verifiable. Where a statement rests on the organisation's own material it is attributed as such; where it rests on purchaser-submitted test reports the limitations of that evidence are stated; and where it rests on PeptidePedia's own reception tally it is labelled weak, self-reported evidence. Independent testing referred to throughout is that published by Janoshik Analytical, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate.^[4]

Incorporated in 2004, the organisation has one of the longer histories among the entities covered here.^[1] Its catalogue is notably broader than the research-peptide sector norm, extending into general laboratory reagents, oligonucleotides and molecular-biology consumables, and its name appears in technical contexts unrelated to the research-compound trade.^[2]

That breadth is the strongest element of its notability case and also the source of a scope question editors have discussed: an organisation whose peptide business is one line among many is not primarily a peptide supplier, and an article that treats it as one distorts what it is.

The organisation distributes through six regional warehouses rather than shipping every order from the manufacturing site: Netherlands (Rotterdam), serving European Union, typically 2-4 days; Germany (Hamburg), serving Germany, Austria, Switzerland, typically 2-4 days; United Kingdom (London), serving United Kingdom & Ireland, typically 2-3 days; United States (California), serving United States, typically 2-4 days; Canada (Toronto), serving Canada, typically 3-5 days; Australia (Melbourne), serving Australia & New Zealand, typically 3-5 days. Reports reaching this wiki describe orders being dispatched from stock held in the purchaser’s own country, which accounts for the delivery times members report.

Purchaser reports describe conventional practice for the peptide lines, with a batch certificate reporting purity and appearance, and water on some lots.^[5] Reagent-line reports describe documentation typical of the laboratory-supply trade — specification sheets and lot-specific certificates — which is a different documentary tradition from the research-compound sector and generally a more standardised one.

No certification claim has been independently corroborated here.^[2][6]

The reagent and oligonucleotide lines place this organisation in a different category from most covered here. Its inclusion in this wiki's supplier articles reflects its peptide listings, not the whole of its business.^[2]

Submitted reports on SGN peptide material to July 2026 are moderate in number. Reported area percent figures have been high and consistent with accompanying certificates.^[5]

Because the reagent business operates in a market with its own documentation conventions, purchasers have been able to compare two documentary traditions on one supplier's paperwork: specification sheets and lot certificates on the reagent side, batch certificates on the peptide side.^[5] That comparison sits within a single organisation and is therefore more informative than a comparison across organisations. Both traditions identify the lot, which is what makes either document checkable at all.

The organisation supplies laboratory reagents and research compounds through the same channel, and the two carry different documentary conventions; a purchaser should know which tradition their order falls under.^[5]

Minimum order quantity is one unit on catalogue lines, with reagent lines following the pack sizes of the reagent trade rather than single vials.

The certificate on a reagent line follows reagent-trade practice: lot, release date, specification, assay result against that specification, and a stated method.^[5] Research-compound lines carry a certificate reporting purity and appearance, with the fuller document issued against a named lot on request.

To obtain the batch record, quote the lot identifier and ask for the specification sheet as well as the certificate. On the reagent lines the specification is the more informative document, because it states what the result was measured against.

The one check that needs no equipment is to read the lot identifier printed on the vial and confirm that the same string appears on the certificate and on the invoice. Where the three agree, the document describes the object; where they do not, nothing else in the documentation can be relied on until the discrepancy is resolved. See Lot traceability. This paragraph is standing text on all twenty-eight organisation articles, per the discussion linked from the talk page.

Material described here is labelled for research use only and is not approved for human use in any jurisdiction. PeptidePedia sells nothing, takes no commission, and records this section because a reader who cannot tell which documents to ask for cannot check anything a supplier tells them.

Go to the SGN catalogue →

The PeptidePedia tally records 751 self-reported submissions to July 2026. Recurring themes are catalogue breadth and the documentary standard of the laboratory-reagent lines, which submissions describe as following the conventions of the reagent trade rather than those of the research-compound trade.^[4] Self-selected; reception rather than quality.^[4]

The reception figure above is a count of self-reported submissions to PeptidePedia, not a score: this wiki publishes none, and the figure says how many people wrote in rather than how good anything is. It is weak evidence and is subject to three limitations that apply to every such figure on this wiki:

• Self-selection. People who submit are not a sample of purchasers. Both satisfaction and dissatisfaction motivate reporting, in unknown proportions.
• It measures reception, not quality. Packaging, communication and delivery are more visible to a purchaser than purity, and weigh accordingly.
• It is not comparable across communities. Other communities publish different figures for the same organisations because their populations differ. A difference between two communities' figures is evidence about the communities.^[4]

PeptidePedia does not rank suppliers and does not maintain a league table. The figures exist because omitting them would be a worse distortion than publishing them with their limitations stated.^[4]

Submissions are reproduced as written, with the submitter's own wording. They are self-reported and unverified, and are quoted to show what the tally is made of rather than to support any claim about the organisation.

Material from two separate lots of PT-141 10 mg was compared; the reported purities differed by one tenth of a percentage point. The moisture figure is a Karl Fischer result, identified as such.

The certificate supplied with the parcel was the lot-specific document rather than a batch-level one, issued against the identifier printed on the vial. Identity by mass spectrometry accompanies the purity figure. No adverse observation arises from the transactions described.

Labelling was printed rather than written by hand, and both lot and date could be read. The certificate as issued required no follow-up.

A custom-synthesis enquiry produced a quotation with a stated timeline; delivery preceded that date by 3 days. Reply to the technical enquiry took under four hours during working hours.

Vial masses across the shipment fell inside a two per cent spread. What separates the independent figure from the printed one is less than method scatter. The observation concerns how the material is documented rather than how pure it is.

Release is signed by an identified person, with the date beside the signature. The reorder placed at 8 months returned a figure within one tenth of a point of the original.

Retention time for the major component is given, not only its area. Water content is reported by Karl Fischer titration.

A request for a second certificate covering a lot purchased 24 months earlier was met from the supplier’s records. A lower quotation elsewhere came without the documentation compared here.

Submitted material from lot SGN-24-454 to Medutest; the reported figure was 97.9% against a stated 97.7%. The submission is retained in full in the page history.

The certificate distinguishes content from purity instead of reporting a single number. The answer arrived four hours after the question, on a working day.

The lot was determined twice, by different laboratories, and the two results agreed to one decimal place. Agreement between the two is within what the method can distinguish. Readers are reminded that this article publishes no score.

A solvent-residue screen was enclosed as a matter of course. No relationship exists between this contributor and the supplier beyond the transaction described.

The customs documentation needed no correction and cleared first time. Figures quoted are as reported by the testing service named and have not been independently reproduced by this project.

Over 6 months this contributor records 8 orders without substitution or reformulation of a catalogue line. The comparison line quoted cheaper elsewhere and arrived less well documented. This submission is about the documentation rather than about any one purity figure.

The stability statement is tied to a stated storage condition rather than left open. Documentation arrived complete and no second request followed.

The consignment was single-lot throughout. The observation covers the lots named and no others.

The related-substances table on the certificate was itemised by individual impurity rather than reported as a single aggregate figure. Whatever separates the two determinations is beneath the method’s resolution. The observation covers the lots named and no others.

A repeat order of the same line placed at 9 months returned 97.7%, against 97.7% on the original. The reorder placed at 20 months returned a figure within one tenth of a point of the original. Nothing in this submission constitutes medical advice.

Packing on the consignment examined comprised each vial wrapped separately with foam cut to fit.

Impurities are itemised individually instead of being reported as one total. Elsewhere the same line cost less and carried a shorter certificate.

6 vials from a retatrutide 10 mg consignment were weighed against the stated fill; all fell within two per cent. The first document set answered every question this contributor had.

The storage condition against which the stability statement was written appears on the certificate, so the statement can be read against the conditions the material actually met. This contributor’s repeat lines are carried in regional stock. This is a single contributor's record and is not presented as a general finding.

The batch record was sent on asking, as an attachment. Each determination sits within the band a repeat of the method would occupy. Nothing in this submission constitutes medical advice.

The pack was still frozen when the parcel was opened on the eighth day. The record is offered for comparison rather than as a recommendation.

Material obtained directly returned 97.8%; a vial of nominally the same compound obtained through a reseller returned 97.6%. Further submissions covering later lots would be useful.

The conditions given — gradient and column — are enough to run the determination again. No relationship exists between this contributor and the supplier beyond the transaction described.

The organisation is a commercial entity registered in the People's Republic of China. Nothing in the available record indicates a manufacturing authorisation, marketing authorisation or pharmacopoeial registration in any jurisdiction, and none should be inferred from a registered business scope, which is a licensing fact and not a quality assurance.^[1]

Material labelled for research use only is outside the regulatory framework that governs medicines. Its identity, purity, sterility and endotoxin content are not assured by any regulator, and a certificate of analysis issued by a supplier is a claim by that supplier rather than an independent finding.^[3][7]

Import of such material for personal use is unlawful or restricted in many jurisdictions, and seizure is a documented outcome. PeptidePedia describes the legal position and does not advise on it.^[3]

This article exists because the organisation satisfies at least three of the five criteria at Project:Vendor notability. The available documentary base is: a company registration record; the organisation's own published material, usable only for what it states about itself; and third-party test reports submitted by purchasers.^[1][2][5]

What is not available is independent coverage in a source unconnected with the organisation or its customers. That gap is characteristic of the sector rather than of this entity, and it constrains what a neutral article can say: capability, capacity, manufacturing arrangements and quality systems are not established here, and statements about them appear only as attributed claims.^[2]

Two frameworks are named in this article only to say what has not been established against them: a quality-system claim is not a fact until assessed against the applicable good-manufacturing-practice framework,^[6] and a testing laboratory's competence is a matter of accreditation to a recognised standard rather than of self-description.^[8] Neither assessment is available here for this organisation or for any other covered on this wiki.

The article's talk page carries the notability assessment in full, together with the drafting decisions that follow from it: what this article may state outright, what it may only attribute, and what it must leave out.

• Sangon Biotech (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. — official site (sangonbio.com) — the organisation's own catalogue, stock listing and ordering pages. Marked nofollow and sponsored; PeptidePedia takes no commission and the link is not an endorsement.
• Project:Vendor notability — why this article carries an outbound link and the organisations listed at the foot of Category:Peptide suppliers do not.

• Certificate of analysis
• Third-party testing
• Area percent purity
• Peptide content
• Research use only
• Peptide supply chain
• Blind sampling

• Project:Vendor notability — the criteria under which this article exists, and what supplier articles may not contain.
• Project:Sourcing guidelines — how test reports and community tallies are cited on this wiki.