YK-11 is not a peptide. It is a synthetic, small molecule compound with a steroid-like structure, studied for selective interaction with the androgen receptor. Its association with follistatin results from the experimentally observed effect on the expression of this protein rather than from YK-11 itself being follistatin or an amino acid sequence.[1][2]
Scientific literature includes cellular studies, animal experiments, and human metabolism studies conducted for analytical purposes. These sources do not confirm the effective or safe use of YK-11 in bodybuilding. Understanding the difference between molecular activity, exposure measurement, and clinical benefit is fundamental to interpreting claims regarding this substance.
What is YK-11? Names, synonyms and identity
The most important distinction is between the name of the substance and the claim regarding its action. YK-11 identifies the compound that researchers have tried to characterize. This name by itself does not mean an approved drug, a defined therapeutic indication, or a verified commercial formulation. Those who seek information may encounter these very different concepts on one side of the search results, which is why precise terminology is essential.
The names used in scientific databases serve to index and identify. They do not confirm the identity of the material offered by the vendor, the suitability of the experimental solvent, or the compliance of the commercial product with the analytical reference material. The name similarity does not substitute for an independent examination of identity.
YK-11 and YK11 are variants of the same research identifier. Its extended chemical name describes a modified steroid skeleton, and PubChem registers the compound under the CID number 119058028. This is a defined chemical substance used in research, not a tissue extract or a peptide mixture.[3]
The designations YK-11 should not be considered synonymous with follistatin, myostatin, testosterone, or any other SARM. These substances have different identities, even if they appear in discussions about related biological pathways.
The research material described in the publication also differs from the online product presented as containing YK-11. The name on the label does not confirm the chemical composition, stereochemistry, concentration, impurities, or equivalence to the material used in the experiments.
In one of the publications on metabolism, the starting point was the identification of YK11 in the protected product. Subsequently, analytical markers of exposure were investigated. This demonstrates the importance of chemical identification, but does not confirm the authenticity of all commercial products or their clinical suitability. [4]
Literature searches should therefore distinguish between a specific relationship and broader discussions regarding the entire category of substances. An article about a different SARM or a construct for the transfer of the follistatin gene cannot be considered direct evidence regarding YK-11.
How is YK-11 classified? Peptide, protein, mixture, or other substance?
Distinguishing between the chemical class and pharmacological behavior explains a significant portion of misunderstandings. The steroid skeleton describes the structure of the molecule. The androgen receptor modulation describes the observed biological interaction. None of these classifications is equivalent to confirming a specific therapeutic effect or indicating belonging to a peptide family.
The word „selective” also has a narrower meaning than is sometimes assumed. The answer that appears to be selective in a reporter test may depend on the genes examined, the amount of receptor cofactors, and the specific cellular environment. It does not prove that the compound will not adversely affect the liver, the cardiovascular system, reproductive tissues, or the human brain.
YK-11 is a small-molecule steroid compound with experimentally studied androgen receptor modulating activity. It is neither a peptide nor a protein. The initial receptor study clearly described the new steroid compound and demonstrated partial agonism in the applied reporter system.[1]
The term SARM stands for a selective androgen receptor modulator. It does not require that every compound designated in this way have a non-steroidal structure. Therefore, the steroid structure of YK-11 and its classification in SARM studies are not contradictory.
Partial agonism also requires context. It describes the receptor’s activity towards a comparator substance in a specific experimental system. It does not mean „partially non-toxic,” weak in all tissues, or automatically safer than a full agonist. The genetic context, the type of cells, exposure, and interacting pathways can all change the observed response.
| Term | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| YK-11 / YK11 | Identification of the research association |
| Steroid compound of low molecular weight | Chemical classification |
| SARM | Pharmacological research category |
| Partial androgen receptor agonist | Results of certain experimental systems |
| Follistatin inducer | Observing with a cellular research study requires context |
| Peptide | Incorrect chemical classification |
The term „miostatin inhibitor” should be used with caution. The often cited experiment on muscle cells has linked YK11 with follistatin expression and cell differentiation. This is not equivalent to direct demonstration of selective binding to miostatin or to clinically proven therapy that blocks miostatin. [2]
The structure and composition of YK-11 – what has been established?
The summary pattern specifies the number and type of atoms in a defined compound, but does not show how all the atoms are arranged in three-dimensional space. In the case of biologically active steroids, the configuration of specific positions may be important for interactions with receptors. Therefore, publications should indicate what chemical form was synthesized or measured, rather than relying solely on the abbreviation YK11.
Another important distinction concerns the parent compound and the products of its metabolism. The structure of the parent compound is necessary for identifying the material introduced into the experiment. Metabolite profiles, however, help to understand what can subsequently be detected in biological samples. This information complements each other, but they do not constitute interchangeable measures of clinical exposure or biological effect.
PubChem provides a summary formula of C₂₅H₃₄O₆ and an approximate molecular mass of 430.5 g/mol. These are properties of a small organic molecule, not an amino acid sequence. The steroid skeleton and additional functional groups distinguish YK-11 from both peptide substances and unmodified steroid hormones.[3]
The overall pattern itself does not fully describe the stereochemistry or composition of the experimental sample. Initial chemical studies analyzed the synthesis of YK11 and the biologically active stereochemical forms, demonstrating why accurate material characterization is important.[5]
Similarly, the declared purity percentage does not confirm all the properties relevant to biological experiments. Identity, quantity, chemical impurities, stereochemical composition, stability, and biological activity are separate analytical issues. A sample may meet one measurement criterion while at the same time being insufficiently characterized for another purpose.
The metabolic study additionally shows why the parent compound structure should not be equated with biological exposure. Scientists detected metabolites in the urine rather than the intact parent compound YK11 in the analyzed samples. This is an analytical observation regarding metabolism and detection, not evidence of a systemic lack of activity.[4]
When comparing publications, information about the material, formulation, model, and measurement method should be kept in mind. Differences in sample preparation or exposure can affect the results, even if the same research identifier appears in the titles.
Studies on YK-11 – evidence in humans, animals and in the laboratory
Studies of YK-11 should best be considered as several distinct groups of evidence. Receptor tests verify whether the molecule alters signaling under strictly controlled conditions. Muscle and bone cell studies analyze subsequent biological responses. Animal experiments involve more complex systems, including potential adverse effects. Analytical studies in humans can provide information about metabolism without testing for clinical benefits. Separating these categories prevents confusion between a series of mechanistic observations and a program of efficacy studies in humans.
The strength of a conclusion depends not only on whether the publication exists, but also on what questions its project is able to answer. A repeatable biochemical effect can constitute convincing evidence of activity in a given system, while at the same time remaining insufficient evidence of the effectiveness of the treatment. Similarly, a troubling result from an animal study may justify further safety testing, but does not allow for an accurate assessment of the risk in humans.
Receptor and muscle cell research
In an experiment using a receptor reporter system, the result is usually a laboratory signal related to transcription, rather than a direct measure of muscle development. Such experiments allow the comparison of molecular responses under selected conditions, but they overlook the complex distribution, metabolism, and tissue interactions occurring throughout the body. Even a repeatable effect cannot be directly translated into a percentage increase in muscle mass.
The C2C12 model also represents a specific stage of muscle cell biology. Differentiation-related markers help study the development of precursor cells, but do not measure the functional fitness of mature human muscles. The antibody experiment reinforces the proposed role of follistatin in this system, while leaving the possibility of the involvement of other pathways.
In a 2011 receptor study, the androgen response reporter system and other cellular measurements were used to analyze partial agonism and activity dependent on specific genes. This work provided a starting point for mechanistic studies rather than examining clinical results in humans.[1]
A 2013 study analyzed mouse mioblasts C2C12. YK11 increased fibroblast expression and promoted differentiation-related changes. An antibody directed against fibroblast growth factor weakened this effect. This supports the role of fibroblast growth factor in the studied cell model. However, it does not determine the magnitude of muscle growth, strength gain, or safety in humans. [2]
Later work investigated androgen receptor response genes and cofactors-related mechanisms in breast cancer cell lines dependent on genes. Using tumor cells for the study of the mechanism itself does not constitute proof of the efficacy of cancer treatment. The experimental question and the clinical claim must remain separate. [6]
Bone studies and other experiments on animals
The bone results require separate interpretation, rather than being included in the overall claim of anabolic action. Cell proliferation, differentiation markers, mineralization, and healing of the experimental fracture are different measurements. Even favorable results regarding several of them would not by themselves confirm the prevention of fractures or improvement of recovery in people with osteoporosis.
Neurological and sepsis studies also show why publication titles can be misleading when read without methods. It is not important whether the title contains the words „supplement,” „protection,” or „improvement,” but whether the researchers measured the outcome in humans, animals, or in cell cultures. The hypothesis regarding the benefit in humans remains a hypothesis until it is directly tested.
In a study of osteoblast-like cells, proliferation and differentiation-related responses were analyzed. Newer studies included bone marrow stromal cells and an animal model of bone loss. These results expand the preclinical literature, but do not confirm the treatment of osteoporosis or fracture healing in humans. [7] [8]
In a study of sepsis in mice, YK11 was analyzed in the context of inflammatory responses and muscle regulation. Despite the use of the term „health supplement” in the title of the publication, the experiment was not a human supplement study or evidence of preventing sepsis in humans. The title should not mislead about the actual study design. [9]
In a separate experiment in rats, hippocampal results were analyzed and changes in neurochemical, inflammatory, and memory-related parameters were described. These observations merit attention as preclinical safety signals, but do not allow the determination of the frequency of neurological damage in humans. The computer predictions included in the study should also be distinguished from experimentally measured exposure or inhibition of a molecular target.[10]
Evidence regarding metabolism in humans
Analytical studies can be valuable even when they are not therapeutic trials. Researchers developing detection methods must distinguish the parent molecule from metabolites and identify the signals that persist in the relevant samples. These results can improve analytical specificity, but they do not show how human strength, hormonal functions, or long-term health status change after exposure.
Therefore, two opposing errors should be avoided: claiming that there are absolutely no studies on YK-11 in humans, and presenting the detection of metabolites in humans as evidence of clinically proven benefits. Both statements obscure the real purpose of the study.
A 2018 publication examined the elimination of YK11 in humans and metabolites in urine using a labeled compound and analytical methods relevant for anti-doping control. This is a study involving humans, so stating „YK-11 has never been studied in humans” would be too broad. However, the metabolism study is not a randomized trial confirming benefits in muscle building, long-term tolerance, or an appropriate clinical regimen.[4]
In this focused review, no controlled human efficacy study was identified that supports the claims regarding bodybuilding. This is a statement about the evidence found, not a declaration that all potential unpublished studies have been excluded.
Mechanism of action studied in the context of YK-11
A useful way to assess the proposed pathway is to break it down into its stages. First, researchers observe the interaction with androgen receptor signaling. Then, specific cell experiments show altered expression of follistatin. Finally, independent studies show that follistatin interacts with muscle-regulating ligands. Collectively, these findings do not prove that YK-11 directly binds myostatin or causes predictable changes in muscle mass in humans.
Changes in the amount of RNA information, protein levels, ligand binding, and the physiology of the entire organism represent different levels of biological evidence. An increase in transcript quantity may, but does not have to lead to a sustained increase in functional protein quantity. Even if this occurs, the result may depend on the tissue and exposure. Any clinical claim requires evidence spanning these intermediate stages, rather than assuming that they occur automatically.
The basic mechanistic model begins with the modulation of the androgen receptor. The original study analyzed the receptor’s movement into the cell nucleus, transcriptional activity, and interaction between the receptor’s terminal domains. These results help explain why activity can vary between genes, rather than following a uniform pattern.[1]
The study of muscle cells provides another observation: the expression of follistatin was associated with the differentiation response, and the interference with it using an antibody supported its functional role. This does not prove that YK11 is chemically equivalent to follistatin or that all its effects are mediated by this protein. [2]
Many popular claims combine several distinct stages into one. Increasing the amount of follistatin mRNA does not necessarily mean a sustained increase in circulating protein levels. The differentiation marker is not synonymous with greater, efficient human muscle. The change in myostatin-related signaling does not indicate selective, direct binding to myostatin.
Later studies of gene regulation point to another source of complexity: DNA binding and the recruitment of cofactors may participate in the context-dependent responses of the androgen receptor. These results make general claims about „muscle-specific” action less valid without direct tissue and clinical evidence.[6]
Computer modeling or pharmacokinetic modeling can generate hypotheses that are amenable to testing, but do not independently confirm the molecular target interaction or clinical safety. Predicted brain penetration should be considered a prediction unless supported by appropriate experimental measurements. This distinction is particularly important when discussing a neurological study. [10]
Limitations of the scientific evidence regarding YK-11
The lack of well-controlled clinical efficacy studies is particularly significant because the proposed uses involve healthy individuals and not patients participating in studies due to a specific medical need. A laboratory signal may justify further studies, but it does not allow determining whether the potential effects would outweigh the risks in such a context. The cited evidence does not provide solid grounds for considering a specific non-medical exposure as safe.
An additional problem is the possibility of transferring results to other conditions. In experiments, a characterized material and precisely defined conditions are used, whereas products available outside the study may differ in composition or labeling. This makes it difficult to interpret personal relationships. Even honest observation may not identify the actual substance or distinguish its action from concurrent exposures.
The main limitation is the gap between preclinical activity and controlled evidence regarding human results. Several models show biological effects, but they relate to different tissues and research questions. Combining them into a general statement about safe muscle growth is not justified.
The second limitation is the replacement of endpoints. Differentiation of cells, muscle size, strength, functional fitness, and quality of life require different measurements. A favorable laboratory result does not confirm all subsequent results in this sequence.
The evidence regarding safety is also incomplete. Results from animal studies may reveal concerns, but do not allow for a numerical risk assessment in humans. On the other hand, the lack of a comprehensive database on adverse effects in humans should not be presented as evidence that harm is rare. Uncertainty regarding the composition of products further complicates the interpretation of experiences outside controlled studies.
The FDA warns that SARMs sold as supplements are unapproved drugs, and points out serious health risks regarding this class of substances. This warning is not a study of the frequency of adverse effects specific to YK11, but contradicts the assumption that the supplement’s labeling confirms regulatory approval or safety. [11]
The WADA list for 2026 lists YK-11 in the category of SARMs and anabolic agents prohibited for all time. This is a classification based on sport, separate from chemical identity, national pharmaceutical law, and clinical efficacy.[12]
The correct conclusion is that YK11 is an experimentally active steroid compound, for which the available evidence base remains limited and inconsistent. Its molecular identity is better established than the proposed benefits in humans, and the association with follistatin should be attributed to experiments in which it has been demonstrated.
How should we interpret the results of the YK-11 research without drawing any hasty conclusions?
Chemical identification and confirmed biological exposure
The structure database and validated analytical method address related but different questions. The first describes the intended relationship, while the second tests whether a specific chemical signal can be detected in a given material. The detection of a metabolite may support the assessment of exposure, but does not automatically reveal the concentration of the active parent compound in the androgen-responsive tissue or the time of interaction with the receptor. These uncertainties are important in interpreting claims based on a publication regarding metabolism in humans [3] [4].
Biological activity and important results in humans
A positive cellular response may be a valid experimental observation, even if its clinical significance remains unknown. Publications on the receptor and myoblasts analyze the mechanism and differentiation respectively. They do not present controlled human results regarding strength, disability, or quality of life. Any claim that moves from cell behavior to predictable human benefit exceeds the evidence gap that cited studies do not fill. [1] [2]
Safety signals and the measured frequency of adverse events
Neurological testing in rats is important because it examines possible adverse effects throughout the body. However, animal experiments do not allow for determining the frequency of adverse effects in humans, and the lack of large clinical studies means that the magnitude of the potential risk remains poorly characterized. The FDA warnings regarding the entire class of substances and the YK-11 status according to WADA provide important context, but serve other purposes than controlled safety studies specific to this compound.[10][11][12]
Research priorities and unresolved questions
Future studies should determine the identity and repeatability of the experimental material, describe its pharmacology in relevant biological systems, and systematically assess safety before broad claims can be considered for humans. If a therapeutic indication were proposed, studies would have to specify a specific patient population and clinically relevant outcomes, rather than using differentiation of muscle cells as a surrogate measure of treatment success.
The relationship between androgen receptor signaling and follistatin also constitutes a separate research question. Clarifying whether the observed changes in expression translate into functional protein effects at appropriate exposure would help determine which part of the proposed mechanism is supported. However, in and of itself, it would not resolve the issues of safety, efficacy, or regulatory approval.
Frequently asked questions about YK-11
1. Does YK-11 mean one of the defined substances?
Yes. YK-11 identifies a research compound with a specific chemical structure, although the exact stereochemical characterization and analysis of the sample still have significance. This does not confirm the authenticity of every product that uses this name. Molecular identity in the database and the authenticity of the commercial sample are separate issues. [3] [5] The results of a study using a specific stereochemical form should not be generalized to material with uncertain configuration. The product name is the starting point for identification, not the analytical result.
2. What do the available studies on YK-11 confirm?
They confirm experimental activity against the androgen receptor, results in cell and animal models, and metabolic studies in humans. They do not confirm safe or effective use in bodybuilding. Each result should be interpreted according to the model used, exposure, and endpoint, rather than being combined into a general claim of benefit. [1] [4] The hierarchy of evidence is important: chemical and cellular data can support mechanistic hypotheses, whereas clinical results require direct measurements in humans. A collection of studies conducted at different levels does not replace a controlled clinical trial.
3. Is YK-11 a peptide?
No. YK-11 is a small molecule steroid and not an amino acid chain. Its effect on follistatin expression in a cell experiment does not make it a peptide or a protein. The chemical classification depends on the structure, not on the biological pathway that the substance can interact with. [3] Proteins and peptides consist of amino acid residues linked by peptide bonds. YK-11, however, has a molecular backbone based on a steroid structure, regardless of the signaling effects described.
4. Can SARM have a steroid structure?
Yes. SARM describes pharmacological receptor modulation, whereas the term „steroidal” refers to the molecular structure. The original publication on YK11 investigated a steroid-like compound exhibiting selective receptor-related behavior. Calling it non-steroidal solely because it is discussed as a SARM would be incorrect. [1] Therefore, the terms „steroidal” and „selective androgen receptor modulator” should be treated as descriptions of different properties, rather than mutually exclusive categories.
5. Is YK-11 the same as follistatin?
No. Follistatin is a protein, whereas YK11 is a small molecule that influenced the expression of follistatin in the studied cell system. These are different substances and interventions. Evidence regarding gene therapy using follistatin cannot be directly transferred to YK11. [2] An intervention that increases protein production by a cell is not equivalent to the administration of that protein. Neither of them is the same as introducing a construct for gene transfer. Each approach involves other questions regarding exposure.
6. Does the study of muscle cells prove the direct binding of YK-11 to myostatin?
No. The main findings concerned the expression of follistatin and myogenic differentiation. These observations do not independently confirm the selective, physical binding of YK11 to myostatin. The mechanism description should reflect the conducted experiment, rather than suggest an unmeasured molecular interaction. [2] The antibody experiment supports the involvement of follistatin in the observed cellular response, but it is not a test of the physical binding between YK-11 and myostatin.
7. Does partial agonism guarantee fewer side effects?
No. It describes activity in a specific receptor test, not general clinical safety. Responses may vary depending on tissue, genetic context, and exposure. A lower maximum response in one system does not substitute for a systematic assessment of activity across the entire organism. [1] This term describes the relationship between the substance under study and the reference response in a specific test. It does not allow predicting the full profile of adverse reactions in a person exposed to the compound.
8. Have any studies of YK-11 in humans been published?
Yes. A study on metabolism and elimination in humans conducted for analytical purposes has been published. Its existence rules out the general claim that no human studies have been conducted, but it does not confirm therapeutic efficacy or long-term safety. The purpose of the study is crucial for interpretation. [4] Analytical studies involving humans are important because they provide information about detection and metabolism. However, they should be described accurately and not presented as evidence of therapeutic studies being conducted.
9. Does the metabolic study confirm the effectiveness in building muscle?
No. The identification of metabolites answers questions regarding exposure and analytical detection. It does not measure controlled changes in muscle function or clinical benefits. Such results require appropriately designed efficacy studies, rather than extrapolations from chemical detection. Muscle growth, strength, and functional fitness are not surrogate endpoints. Neither of these can be inferred from a measurement of a metabolite in the urine.
10. Does the absence of undetectable unchanged YK11 in urine mean no biological activity?
No. Metabolism can lead to the formation of detectable metabolites even if the intact parent compound is not present in the sample. The analytical result depends on the type of material and method. It should not be interpreted as a lack of exposure or evidence of safety. [4] The metabolite may remain detectable after the chemical transformation of the parent compound, and the effectiveness of detection depends on the method of sampling and analysis of the sample. None of these observations determines the degree of receptor signaling.
11. Do the results of bone marrow studies confirm the benefits in the healing of fractures?
No. Cell differentiation and repair in the animal model are preclinical endpoints. Healing of fractures in humans requires appropriate studies measuring recovery, function, and adverse effects. Bone studies support further analysis but do not confirm clinical indication.[7][8] The difference between the endpoint in cell culture and return to function after a fracture is significant. Different tissues, injury circumstances, and functional measures should be investigated.
12. Has the sepsis study confirmed YK11 as a supplement for humans?
No. The described study concerned a mouse model, despite the wording used in the title. It did not confirm prophylactic benefits or safety in humans. Publication titles should always be interpreted in conjunction with the methods and the population being studied. [9] The mouse experiment cannot confirm the supplement's effectiveness in humans, and the terminology used by the authors does not change the species used in the study.
13. Do the results of brain studies in rats indicate a specific neurological risk in humans?
No. They point to preclinical concerns, not a measured frequency of risk in humans. Species, exposure, and experimental methods limit the ability to transfer results. These observations should not be ignored or transformed into precise predictions for individual people. [10] Animal findings can identify biological issues requiring further investigation. They should be presented in this way, without suggesting that similar magnitude or probability of harm has been measured in humans.
14. Does computer docking prove the inhibition of a molecular target?
No. The docking predicts possible interactions based on the model assumptions. Functional inhibition requires appropriate experimental evidence, and the clinical significance of further data regarding exposure and outcomes. The predicted favorable binding position is a hypothesis generating result, not a complete confirmation of the mechanism. The predicted affinity and experimentally verified functional inhibition are separate results. Even laboratory confirmation of the effect with a target does not prove a favorable or safe clinical outcome.
15. Does the high purity declaration confirm the suitability of YK-11 for human use?
No. Purity is one of the analytical results that depend on the method used. It does not independently confirm the identity, quality of formulations, biological safety, or clinical benefits. The characterization of the investigational substance and the suitability of the drug for use are different evidentiary issues. Chemical purity alone does not inform about the safety of quantity, route, or time of exposure either. Regulatory adequacy requires a much broader range of evidence.
16. Is YK-11 banned in sports?
Yes. The WADA list for 2026 clearly lists YK-11 among SARMs that are banned for all time. The „for research” designation on the supplement label does not change this classification. Sport regulations should be reviewed independently of claims regarding mechanism or efficacy. [12] Anti-doping regulations concern prohibited substances and methods, not whether a compound has shown therapeutic benefits. The availability from a vendor does not change its status under these rules.
17. What evidence would be needed to support broader claims about humans?
Controlled studies using well-characterized material and relevant human outcomes, along with an appropriately long safety follow-up period, would be needed. These should separately assess muscle mass, strength, function, and adverse effects. Current cellular and animal studies do not replace such clinical evidence. The studies would also require transparent reporting of participant selection, comparison groups, pre-defined endpoints, and adverse events. Independent replication of the results would help distinguish repeatable observations from case or project-specific effects.
Applications
The best-supported picture of YK-11 does not lie in its being considered biologically inactive or in the claim that the proposed uses have been clinically validated. The compound exhibits documented experimental activity, including cell observations associated with follistatin, and has been the subject of human metabolism studies. These results confirm distinct scientific facts, but leave important questions regarding clinical efficacy, safety, and product identity.
YK-11 is a small molecule steroid, not a peptide or a follistatin protein. The literature includes not only cell studies but also animal experiments and human metabolism studies. However, controlled evidence regarding benefits and safety in humans remains insufficient in the found literature. The association with follistatin is of interest from a mechanistic perspective, but does not support claims regarding bodybuilding.
Educational and medical reservation
The article is of a purely scientific and educational nature and does not constitute medical advice or a recommendation for the use of YK-11. It does not contain instructions for dosage, administration, or combination with other substances.
The results of cell, animal, and analytical studies cannot be considered evidence of efficacy or safety in humans. YK-11 remains a research compound, and its use is prohibited by WADA in 2026.[12]
References
- Kanno, Y., Hikosaka, R., Zhang, S. Y., Inoue, Y., Nakahama, T., Kato, K., Yamaguchi, A., Tominaga, N., Kohra, S., Arizono, K., & Inouye, Y. (2011). (17α,20E)-17,20-[(1-methoxyethylidene)bis(oxy)]-3-oxo-19-norpregna-4,20-diene-21-carboxylic acid methyl ester (YK11) is a partial agonist of the androgen receptor. Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 34(3), 318–323. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.34.318
- Kanno, Y., Ota, R., Someya, K., Kusakabe, T., Kato, K., & Inouye, Y. (2013). Selective androgen receptor modulator, YK11, regulates myogenic differentiation of C2C12 myoblasts by follistatin expression. Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 36(9), 1460–1465. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.b13-00231
- National Center for Biotechnology Information. (n.d.). PubChem compound summary for CID 119058028, YK-11. Retrieved October 23, 2026, from https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/119058028
- Piper, T., Dib, J., Putz, M., Fusshöller, G., Pop, V., Lagojda, A., Kuehne, D., Geyer, H., Schänzer, W., & Thevis, M. (2018). Studies on the in vivo metabolism of the SARM YK11: Identification and characterization of metabolites potentially useful for doping controls. Drug Testing and Analysis, 10(11-12), 1646–1656. https://doi.org/10.1002/dta.2527
- Kanno, Y., Kusakabe, T., Saito, N., Kikkawa, S., Takahashi, K., Azumaya, I., Nemoto, K., & Kato, K. (2020). Improved synthesis and determination of the biologically active diastereomer of YK11. Molbank, 2020(2), M1125. https://doi.org/10.3390/M1125
- Kanno, Y., Saito, N., Saito, R., Kosuge, T., Shizu, R., Yatsu, T., Hosaka, T., Nemoto, K., Kato, K., & Yoshinari, K. (2022). Differential DNA-binding and cofactor recruitment are possible determinants of the synthetic steroid YK11-dependent gene expression by the androgen receptor in breast cancer MDA-MB 453 cells. Experimental Cell Research, 419(2), 113333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2022.113333
- Yatsu, T., Kusakabe, T., Kato, K., Inouye, Y., Nemoto, K., & Kanno, Y. (2018). Selective androgen receptor modulator, YK11, up-regulates osteoblastic proliferation and differentiation in MC3T3-E1 cells. Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 41(3), 394–398. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.b17-00748
- Wang, R., Zhong, Y., Du, Q., Zhao, C., Wang, Y., & Pan, J. (2025). YK11 promotes osteogenic differentiation of BMSCs and repair of bone defects. Journal of Molecular Endocrinology, 74(2). https://doi.org/10.1530/JME-24-0073
- Lee, S. J., Gharbi, A., Shin, J. E., Jung, I. D., & Park, Y. M. (2021). Myostatin inhibitor YK11 as a preventative health supplement for bacterial sepsis. Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications, 543, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbrc.2021.01.030
- Dahleh, M. M. M., Bortolotto, V. C., Boeira, S. P., Segat, H. J., Guerra, G. P., & Prigol, M. (2024). From gains to gaps? How selective androgen receptor modulator (SARM) YK11 impacts hippocampal function: In silico, in vivo, and ex vivo perspectives. Chemical-Biological Interactions, 394, 110971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cbi.2024.110971
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (n.d.). FDA warns of use of selective androgen receptor modulators (SARMs) among teens, young adults. Retrieved October 23, 2026, from https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/fda-warns-use-selective-androgen-receptor-modulators-sarms-among-teens-young-adults
- World Anti-Doping Agency. (2025). The 2026 prohibited list: International standard. Retrieved October 23, 2026, from https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/2026list_en_final_clean_september_2025.pdf