B7-33 is a synthetic peptide developed based on the B chain of human relaxin-2. It was created to investigate whether a simplified single-chain analog can replicate the selected signaling effects of a larger hormone composed of two chains. The published studies concern receptor pharmacology, tissue fibrosis, cardiovascular damage, and experimental drug delivery technologies.
Although some laboratory and animal results indicate interesting biological activity, the available evidence does not confirm the clinical efficacy of B7-33 or its established safety profile in humans. 1
The interpretation of the studies requires consideration of the exact experimental substance. The human fibroblast experiment is not a clinical study involving patients. The peptide combined with the nanoparticle is not equivalent to the unmodified peptide, and the results regarding recombinant relaxin cannot be automatically attributed to B7-33.
These distinctions are particularly important when evaluating claims regarding tissue regeneration, scarring, and organ protection.
What is B7-33? Research names and identity of the substance
The designation B7-33 refers to the research structure derived from the B-receptor chain.
In the scientific literature, the compound is described as a single-chain analog of relaxin, a substance that mimics the B chain and is a functionally selective agonist of the peptide receptor of the 1-type relaxin family (RXFP1).
These terms describe the molecule's origin and its observed receptor activity, not an approved therapeutic indication. 1
B7-33 is chemically different from natural human relaxin-2 and serelaxin, which is a recombinant form of this hormone.
The natural relaxin has a two-chain structure, whereas the simplified B7-33 consists of a single chain.
Consequently, laboratory or clinical test results regarding serelaxin cannot be automatically applied to B7-33.
Why does the name B7-33 alone not always suffice to identify a peptide?
The name B7-33 requires consideration of the structural context.
The patent document distinguishes between a design based on the original B chain sequence and a version containing the cysteine-serine modifications.
Studies that often discuss the active, simplified structure refer specifically to the modified version. 2
When exact chemical identity is important, the abbreviated name should be accompanied by the complete amino acid sequence, chain end modifications, and any additional chemical changes.
This allows to distinguish the original structure from its later analogues.
How is peptide B7-33 classified?
B7-33 is a defined synthetic peptide.
It is not a complex tissue extract, a mixture of peptides with an undefined composition, or a full-size natural protein.
In some publications, the term „peptydometyk” is used, because the B7-33 structure was developed to mimic the actions of selected relaxin.
This does not mean, however, that the substance does not have a peptide backbone. 1
From a pharmacological point of view, B7-33 was studied as an agonist of RXFP1 exhibiting functional selectivity.
This means that in certain tests, researchers observed differences in the relative activation of individual signaling pathways.
Functional selectivity should not be interpreted as a guarantee of only beneficial effects or as evidence of the absence of adverse effects or activity outside the target mechanism.
Are all preparations designated as B7-33 equivalent?
This cannot be assumed.
The original B7-33 peptide, a lipid-modified analog, the nanoparticle containing the peptide, and the implant coating releasing B7-33 constitute different experimental interventions.
Each of them may have different properties of stability, distribution, and release.
The results obtained for these formulations should not be combined as if they were for the same product.
Amino acid sequence and molecular structure of B7-33
The modified structure described in the patent as B7-33 C11,23S has the following sequence, with the C-terminus aminated:
VIKLSGRELVRAQIAISGMSTWSKRSL–NH2
The chain contains 27 amino acid residues.
The name B7-33 refers to positions 7 to 33 in the parent B-chain of relaxin, which together comprise 27 positions. Therefore, it does not mean that the peptide contains 33 amino acids.
The indicated serine residues replace the cysteine residues according to the numbering of the original chain.
Unlike natural relaxin, whose two chains are joined by disulfide bridges, the documented simplified structure of B7-33 is a single linear chain. 2
Does the sequence specify all the derivatives of B7-33?
No.
The sequence given identifies a specific starting structure, but not all derivatives developed based on it.
The addition of a lipid group, modification of the N end, change in the chemistry of the terminal groups, or conjugation with a carrier can lead to the formation of a separate substance.
Therefore, the result obtained for one derivative should be attributed to that derivative, rather than being applied indiscriminately to all products labeled as B7-33.
How do modifications affect the stability of the peptide?
Stability is an example of a property for which structural details are of great importance.
In 2023, scientists described greater lipid stability of the B7-33 lipid derivative in serum in vitro conditions compared to the unmodified peptide.
At the same time, they indicated the need for further in vivo pharmacokinetic studies. 3
The results regarding stability in the laboratory serum do not allow determining the elimination half-life in humans, the duration of action, or the appropriate dosing schedule.
Scientific studies on B7-33 – laboratory, animal and clinical evidence
First receptor and anti-fibrotic studies
A basic publication from 2016 presented a simplified design of B7-33 and characterized the receptor signaling mechanisms associated with it.
Results regarding fiberization in experimental models of the heart and lungs were also described, and the model of prostate cancer was analyzed. 1
These observations provide a basis for further research.
However, they do not prove that B7-33 reverses organ fibrosis in humans, nor that a comprehensive assessment of its oncological safety has been conducted.
Later studies of medical chemistry analyzed modifications of the B7-33 structure, including strategies that affect the secondary structure and activity of the peptide.
Studies of structure–activity relationships help determine which molecular elements influence signaling.
However, they do not confirm that every modified analog retains the properties of the original structure. 4
Studies of heart damage and cardiomyopathy
In 2020, a study was published in mice using a model of ischemia and reperfusion.
After the experimental use of B7-33, improvements were observed in selected parameters of damage and heart function.
Related experiments on cardiomyocytes concerned the mechanisms of cellular responses to stress. 5
The model of ischemia and reperfusion reproduces some aspects of myocardial damage under controlled conditions.
However, it does not allow determining whether B7-33 improves the prognosis of patients after a heart attack.
In another study, B7-33 was compared with relaxin and perindopril in a mouse model of cardiomyopathy.
The fiberization and selected parameters related to the functioning of the heart were analyzed. 6
Such comparisons are valuable within the limits of the experimental model used.
However, they do not constitute direct comparative studies in humans and do not confirm the superiority of B7-33 over the approved treatment methods.
Studies of blood vessels and endothelial function
Cardiovascular studies indicate that the response to B7-33 may depend on the type of tissue being analyzed.
Beneficial effects were observed in certain experiences on the coronary arteries, however, no equivalent overall response was observed in all the vessels studied.
Additional experiments using a medium conditioned by the trophoblast and isolated mouse vessels concerned endothelial dysfunction; however, they did not include treatment of pregnant women. 7
The results should therefore be presented as observations characteristic of specific vessels and research models.
They do not confirm overall vascular protection or reproductive safety.
Kidney scarring and scarring around the implants
In a study on kidney fibrosis in mice, changes associated with B7-33 were analyzed, while different methods of measuring collagen were compared simultaneously. 8
The study illustrates both the possible anti-fibrotic activity and the importance of choosing the appropriate measurement method.
The amount of collagen, its distribution, and the function of the tissue do not have to change simultaneously.
In another project, B7-33 was incorporated into polymer coatings designed to release the peptide in the environment of the implant.
Scientists described the limitation of creating fibrous encasements around implants in mice. 9
This result applies to the local system of controlled substance release.
It cannot be directly applied to oral preparations, injections, or cosmetic creams without appropriate testing.
Human stem cells and advanced B7-33 delivery systems
In a 2026 study, human fibroblasts derived from hypertrophic scars and a B7-33-containing electrospun dressing were analyzed.
The evaluated parameters included cellular responses, gene expression, and the properties of the peptide delivery system. 10
Because the study used human cells rather than patients undergoing treatment, it remains a laboratory evidence.
It does not clinically confirm that the dressing improves the appearance or structure of scars in humans.
The researchers also analyzed B7-33 combined with nanoparticles, including specialized oral delivery systems of the peptide studied in mice. 11
In such experiments, the carrier is an integral part of the intervention and can influence the body's exposure to the substance.
The results therefore do not confirm the effectiveness of the usual oral preparation containing the free peptide.
Other studies included nanowires containing B7-33 in an experimental model of cancer.
Among other things, the effects on the fibrous microenvironment of the tumor and angiogenesis were analyzed. 12
Because the platform combined several technological elements, the observed tumor responses should not be automatically attributed solely to free B7-33.
The results of the tumor research in animals also do not constitute evidence of effective treatment of tumors in humans.
Have clinical studies confirmed the benefits of using B7-33 in humans?
In the targeted review of the original scientific literature described in the source material, no interventional clinical study evaluating the efficacy of B7-33 in humans was identified.
This is a determination limited by the scope of the search conducted, and not a claim that unpublished or otherwise indexed research cannot exist.
The published publications do not support the approved therapeutic indication, the established prescribing protocol, or an adequate clinical safety database.
Proposed mechanisms of action of B7-33 – RXFP1 and signaling related to fiberization
B7-33 was developed to study signaling associated with the RXFP1 receptor.
The first studies indicated relatively stronger activation of ERK-related pathways than cAMP activation in cells naturally expressing RXFP1.
The involvement of the RXFP1 interaction with the type 2 angiotensin II receptor and further pathways related to the remodeling of the extracellular matrix was also proposed. 1
Why does the type of cells affect receptor test results?
The cellular arrangement is of significant importance for the interpretation of the mechanism.
In later studies, it was observed that cells modified to express the receptor can exhibit different signaling patterns than fibroblasts that use the naturally occurring receptor apparatus. 4
These differences do not necessarily mean that the experiments are incorrect.
However, they show why the receptor response should always be described in the context of the conditions of the specific test.
Do changes in collagen expression mean a reversal of fibrosis?
No.
The fiber alignment can be evaluated using many different parameters.
Changes in the expression of collagen-related genes are not equivalent to changes in the actual amount of collagen, the tissue architecture, the thickness of the scar, or the restoration of the function of the organ.
The study of one of these endpoints cannot be considered evidence of improvement for all the others.
Similarly, experiments concerning the viability of heart cells and the reactivity of blood vessels analyze related but distinct processes.
They should not be combined into a single fully validated mechanism for organ protection. 5 7
The terms „anti-fibrotic” and „tissue-protective” are most precise when accompanied by information about the research model, formulation, comparator group, and the actually observed result.
They do not indicate a confirmed removal of scars, overall regeneration, or accelerated recovery in humans.
Limitations of the scientific evidence regarding B7-33
No confirmed clinical efficacy in humans
The most important limitation is the lack of demonstrated efficacy at the patient level in the reviewed literature.
Cellular experiments and rodent models can confirm the biological rationale for further research.
However, they do not allow for the determination of clinical benefits in humans, long-term tolerability, or an appropriate therapeutic regimen.
Different formulations cannot be considered substitutes.
The modified peptides and delivery systems are not equivalent to the free, original structure of B7-33.
Lipidization, controlled-release coatings, dressings, and nanoparticles can significantly alter the exposure or distribution of substances.
The results should remain attributed to the actually tested preparation. 3 9 11
Safety data are incomplete
A positive result in a single tumor model does not confirm overall oncological safety.
Similarly, vascular experiments do not assess the course of pregnancy, and short-term studies of cell viability do not rule out systemic toxicity.
Credible conclusions regarding human safety require evidence that the aforementioned preclinical experiments do not provide.
The quality of measurements and the repeatability of the results are important
Individual studies differ in terms of control groups, sometimes observation methods, measurement methods, and experimental models.
Further work should take into account the repeatability of the results, the significant magnitude of the observed effects, and endpoints that are of real importance to patients.
Many preclinical publications are not equivalent to independent confirmation of standardized therapy in humans.
The equivalence of commercial products has not been confirmed
The sequence or purity of the peptide declared by the vendor does not confirm pharmaceutical equivalence with the validated test material.
Laboratory characteristics are also not evidence of clinical efficacy.
Chemical identity, quality, and medical benefit remain separate issues.
Frequently asked questions about peptide B7-33
1. Does B7-33 mean a specific substance?
The designation B7-33 usually refers to a specific modified structure derived from the B-chain of relaxin, but the exact chemical details still require verification. The patent document distinguishes between original and modified structures and describes additional variants. 2 The abbreviated name is useful when searching for studies, but for rigorous confirmation of identity, a full sequence and the chemistry of the terminal groups are needed. Because the literature includes closely related variants, the consistency of the name itself is a weaker evidence than confirmation of the full molecular characteristics.
2. What do the available studies on B7-33 confirm?
The studies confirm receptor-related activity and favorable observations in several cell and animal models. The results justify further work, particularly regarding fiberization and organ damage, but do not confirm safe or effective treatment in humans. The strongest justified conclusion remains the preclinical confirmation of the research concept. 1 5 The described effects apply to specific models and endpoints, so they should not be combined into a single statement about proven organ regeneration.
3. Is B7-33 really a peptide?
Yes. The documented modified design of B7-33 is an amino acid chain containing peptide bonds. It is a synthetic analog, not a mixture of undetermined composition. 2 The presence of a peptide skeleton confirms its chemical category. However, this does not automatically mean clinical efficacy or safety. The chemical classification and the experimental status of a substance must be evaluated separately.
4. Does the name B7-33 mean that the peptide contains 33 amino acids?
No. The documented sequence includes positions 7 to 33 in the native B-relaxin chain and contains 27 amino acid residues. The numbering of the positions in the starting hormone and the actual length of the extracted chain are different concepts. 2 A correct description of identity should include the sequence and modifications, rather than deriving the length of a peptide from the last digit in its name.
5. Is B7-33 identical to serelaxin?
No. B7-33 is a simplified monocyclic derivative, whereas serelaxin is a recombinant form of human relaxin-2. The common elements of receptor biology do not imply identical structure, exposure, or clinical evidence. 1 Studies involving the hormone estriol cannot be presented as clinical trials B7-33. Structural simplification is the basis of the research concept and limits the possibility of transferring results between these molecules.
6. What does the functional selectivity of B7-33 mean?
In the experiments discussed, functional selectivity meant the relative preference for the activation of specific signaling responses in defined experimental systems. This does not imply a complete absence of other biological effects. 4 Because the results depend on the test conditions, the designation should describe the observed pharmacology, and not suggest a universally selective therapeutic effect. The preference shown in one test does not guarantee a favorable balance of benefits and risks throughout the body.
7. Are experiments on human fibroblasts a clinical evidence in humans?
No. They provide laboratory data obtained from human material, but they do not constitute evidence of treating patients. The 2026 study on scars included cells and material for delivering the peptide, not a clinical trial. 10 Such experiments can support a mechanistic hypothesis, but they do not allow to determine changes in the appearance of scars, symptoms, or tolerance in treated individuals. The human origin of the cells does not transform laboratory culture into a clinical study.
8. Has it been confirmed that B7-33 reverses fibrosis in humans?
No. The evidence examined does not support clinical reversal of fibrosis in humans. Animal studies have shown anti-fibrotic effects under certain conditions, but tissue remodeling and a patient's history can significantly differ between models and patients. 6 Before formulating therapeutic claims, clinical studies would be necessary. Human diseases may differ from experimentally induced fibrosis in mice in terms of duration, causes, and treatment context.
9. Does the reduction in collagen gene expression indicate the disappearance of the scar?
No. Gene expression and the apparent reduction of scarring are different endpoints. Studies on human fibroblasts evaluated molecular and cellular responses, not the disappearance of scars in patients. 10 Confirmation of a structural or cosmetic effect would require direct clinical measurements and an appropriate observation period. Claims regarding the appearance of the scar must be based on an evaluation of the tissue, and not solely on a change in the molecular marker.
10. Is B7-33 clinically more effective than perindopril?
Such an advantage was not confirmed. A comparative study was conducted in mice and selected parameters were analyzed over a specific experimental period. Long-term clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard treatment were not evaluated. 6 The results may justify further research, but they do not prove that B7-33 should replace the approved drug. The importance lies both in the experimental model and in the length of the observation period and the comparator substance used.
11. Is B7-33 an accepted treatment method after a heart attack?
No. Proper testing has shown effects in a mouse model of ischemia and reperfusion as well as in related cell experiments. The results do not allow determining clinical benefits, intervention time, or safety in patients with myocardial infarction. 5 The correct term is experimental cardioprotective activity, not confirmed treatment. The model forms the basis for further research, but it is not evidence of effectiveness in emergency cardiac treatment.
12. Do vascular studies confirm the safety of B7-33 during pregnancy?
No. Experiments on isolated vessels in a model associated with endothelial dysfunction do not confirm safety in pregnant women or in fetuses. The vessel publication provides mechanistic evidence, not results of reproductive safety studies. 7 The clinical significance remains therefore hypothetical. An assessment of safety in pregnancy would require specially designed reproductive and clinical studies, and not simply measurements of the reactivity of isolated vessels.
13. Is it possible to assume the effectiveness of the usual oral preparation B7-33?
No. The oral studies described in animals used a specialized nanoparticle-based conjugate. The carrier can alter absorption and exposure, therefore it forms part of the intervention being studied. 11 The results do not confirm the efficacy of the conventional oral peptide preparation or any other formulation. In the case of peptides, the properties of the delivery system are particularly important, so the vehicle cannot be overlooked when interpreting oral experience.
14. Are lipidylated B7-33 and native B7-33 interchangeable?
No. Lipidization changes the molecule and can affect its stability and exposure. The serum stability study concerned specific derivatives and did not confirm their equivalence in humans. 3 Therefore, the description of the results should identify the exact derivative, rather than transferring the observations to each material labeled as B7-33. A variant with altered stability may also differ in distribution and pharmacology, and equivalence requires confirmation.
15. Does the positive result of one cancer study prove that B7-33 does not increase the risk of cancer?
No. A single experimental model does not allow answering all questions regarding carcinogenicity or the progression of tumors. The results of the original publication are limited by the model used, exposure, and the time of observation. 1 A comprehensive safety assessment requires broader evidence, therefore a categorical claim about oncological safety would be unfounded. One experimental result does not constitute a systematic assessment of the initiation of a tumor, its progression, or the long-term risk.
16. Does the study of the implant coating confirm the effectiveness of cosmetic creams for scars?
No. The experiment concerned the controlled release of a peptide around the implanted material in mice. The cosmetic cream has a different formulation, exposure method, and intended endpoint. 9 The evidence must relate to the intervention being actually studied, and not be transferred between products simply because both involve collagen or scarring. The type of device, the method of delivery, and the release profile differ from a conventional topical preparation.
17. What evidence would be needed to confirm the therapeutic use of B7-33 in humans?
Validated data on manufacturing and formulation, appropriate toxicological studies, human exposure studies, and controlled clinical trials would be needed. These would have to correspond to a specific disease indication and assess results that are of real relevance to patients. Current preclinical observations justify further research questions, but do not constitute a complete package of evidence. A stepwise development program should also clarify pharmacokinetics, exposure-dependent toxicity, and clinically relevant endpoints before making claims about efficacy.
Conclusions
B7-33 is a synthetic peptide derived from relaxin, with a defined molecular structure and a growing body of preclinical research.
The studies included the signaling of RXFP1, pathways related to fibrosis, damage to the cardiovascular system, vascular responses, and advanced peptide delivery systems.
The strength of each result depends on the model used, the measured endpoint, and the formulation.
The evidence cited does not support the claim that B7-33 is a safe or effective treatment for humans.
The most scientifically justified approach is to maintain this distinction: important laboratory and animal observations can serve as the basis for further research, but they should not be presented as proven clinical efficacy.
Educational and medical reservation
The article is of a purely scientific informational nature and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or recommendations for the purchase or use of B7-33. This is an experimental peptide whose therapeutic efficacy and safety in humans have not been confirmed in the studies discussed. The results of cell, animal, and specialist formulation studies should not be considered evidence of treatment for heart disease, kidney disease, fibrosis, scarring, cancer, or other conditions. Data regarding natural relaxin, serelaxin, and modified B7-33 derivatives cannot be automatically transferred to other preparations. Health issues should be addressed using current guidelines and consultation with qualified medical personnel.
References
- Hossain, M. A., Kocan, M., Yao, S. T., Royce, S. G., Nair, V. B., Siwek, C., Patil, N. A., Harrison, I. P., Rosengren, K. J., Selemidis, S., Summers, R. J., Wade, J. D., Bathgate, R. A. D., & Samuel, C. S. (2016). A single-chain derivative of the relaxin hormone is a functionally selective agonist of the G protein-coupled receptor, RXFP1. Chemical Science, 7(6), 3805–3819. https://doi.org/10.1039/c5sc04754d
- Bathgate, R. A. D., Hossain, M. A., & Wade, J. D. (2017). Modified relaxin B chain peptides (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US20170037106A1). https://patents.google.com/patent/US20170037106A1/en
- Praveen, P., Wang, C., Handley, T. N. G., Wu, H., Samuel, C. S., Bathgate, R. A. D., & Hossain, M. A. (2023). A lipidated single-B-chain derivative of relaxin exhibits improved in vitro serum stability without altering activity. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24(7), Article 6616. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24076616
- Handley, T. N. G., Praveen, P., Tailhades, J., Wu, H., Bathgate, R. A. D., & Hossain, M. A. (2023). Further developments towards a minimal potent derivative of human relaxin-2. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24(16), Article 12670. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms241612670
- Devarakonda, T., Mauro, A. G., Guzman, G., Hovsepian, S., Cain, C., Das, A., Praveen, P., Hossain, M. A., & Salloum, F. N. (2020). B7-33, a functionally selective relaxin receptor 1 agonist, attenuates myocardial infarction-related adverse cardiac remodeling in mice. Journal of the American Heart Association, 9(8), e015748. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.015748
- Alam, F., Gaspari, T. A., Kemp-Harper, B. K., Low, E., Aw, A., Ferens, D., Spizzo, I., Jefferis, A. M., Praveen, P., Widdop, R. E., Bathgate, R. A. D., Hossain, M. A., & Samuel, C. S. (2023). The single-chain relaxin mimetic, B7-33, maintains the cardioprotective effects of relaxin and more rapidly reduces left ventricular fibrosis compared to perindopril in an experimental model of cardiomyopathy. Biomedicine & Pharmacotherapy, 160, 114370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopha.2023.114370
- Marshall, S. A., O’Sullivan, K., Ng, H. H., Bathgate, R. A. D., Parry, L. J., Hossain, M. A., & Leo, C. H. (2017). B7-33 replicates the vasoprotective functions of human relaxin-2 (serelaxin). European Journal of Pharmacology, 807, 190–197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejphar.2017.05.005
- Bhuiyan, S., Shen, M., Chelvaretnam, S., Tan, A. Y., Ho, G., Hossain, M. A., Widdop, R. E., & Samuel, C. S. (2021). Assessment of renal fibrosis and anti-fibrotic agents using a novel diagnostic and stain-free second-harmonic generation platform. The FASEB Journal, 35(5), e21595. https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.202002053RRR
- Welch, N. G., Mukherjee, S., Hossain, M. A., Praveen, P., Werkmeister, J. A., Wade, J. D., Bathgate, R. A. D., Winkler, D. A., & Thissen, H. (2019). Coatings releasing the relaxin peptide analogue B7-33 reduce fibrotic encapsulation. ACS Applied Materials & Interfaces, 11(49), 45511–45519. https://doi.org/10.1021/acsami.9b17859
- Tamburriello, M., Benedetti, L., Chiesa, E., Pisani, S., Genta, I., Conti, B., Ceccarelli, G., & Dorati, R. (2026). B7-33 modulates fibrotic signalling in hypertrophic scar fibroblasts: An in vitro study supporting a novel therapeutic strategy. Journal of Drug Delivery Science and Technology, 121, Article 108327. https://unipv.unifind.cineca.it/resource/item/618128?language=en-US
- Somanader-Livera, D. V. N., Wei, C., Wang, C., Li, Y., Ferens, D., Salimova, E., Selomulya, C., Hossain, M. A., Samuel, C. S., & Chakraborty, A. (2025). Immune cell uptake of glycinated nanoparticles conjugated to anti-fibrotic peptides enables their prolonged activity and oral administration. Journal of Biomedical Science, 32(1), 104. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12929-025-01198-8
- Zhang, L., Duan, X., Shi, Q., Yao, X., Chen, Q., Wan, J., Wang, F., Ni, C., Li, Y., Wang, M., Sheng, Y., Zheng, W., Liu, J., Ji, T., & Qin, Z. (2025). Dual-functional nanovesicles simultaneously inhibit stromal fibrosis and angiogenesis to suppress cholangiocarcinoma progression. Journal of Nanobiotechnology, 23(1), 781. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12951-025-03833-w