SNAP-8

A synthetic eight-amino-acid peptide, listed on ingredient labels as Acetyl Octapeptide-3 and sold to product makers under the trade name SNAP-8. It is the longer version of Argireline — the same chain with two more amino acids on the end — and it is marketed the same way, as something you rub on instead of having botulinum toxin injected.

Sold as

Applied to the skin (serum, cream, dissolving microneedle patch)

Legal status in the EU

A cosmetic ingredient under EU Regulation 1223/2009, listed as Acetyl Octapeptide-3, which involves no check that it works before it goes on sale. Under article 20 and the annex to Regulation 655/2013, claims have to be backed by "adequate and verifiable evidence". Claiming that a product relaxes muscles or replaces an injectable treatment can push it into the legal definition of a medicine in Directive 2001/83/EC, which covers substances intended to restore, correct or modify how the body works. Unlike its six-amino-acid sibling it has no published expert safety assessment: the US Cosmetic Ingredient Review has assessed Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 and Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 Amide, and that document covers no octapeptide.

The chain matches amino acids 12 to 19 of a protein called SNAP-25, which you can read directly in the UniProt entry P60880; Argireline matches 12 to 17 of the same stretch. The molecule also carries an acetyl group at the front end and an amide at the back end, neither of which changes the eight letters. The idea is that it competes with SNAP-25 for its place in the machinery a nerve uses to release its chemical signal onto a muscle, so the muscle pulls less hard. That idea has never been tested on this molecule in any published experiment: the figures offered for how well it blocks the machinery come from the ingredient maker, restated in a review whose only source for that whole paragraph is the manufacturer's own website.

Part of the bodyWhat happensHow it is knownKind of evidence

The lines around the eye, when it is delivered through tiny needles with two other actives

This is the only published test of a product containing SNAP-8 against anything. A dissolving patch covered in 140 microscopic needles was stuck under one eye at night; a patch of plain hyaluronic acid went under the other. After 28 days the treated side was measurably smoother on every roughness measure than the untreated side. The catch is what else was in the patch: a vitamin C derivative at 5% and a fatty signalling molecule at 4%, against a patch that had neither. SNAP-8 was 0.03% of it. Nothing in the study separates the three.

Measured in people, once. 24 people aged 30 to 65 with eye wrinkles were enrolled and 21 finished. Patches were applied nightly for 14 days, then every third day to day 28. All five surface-roughness measures differed between the treated eye and the hyaluronic-acid-only eye at day 28 (p < 0.05). Four of the five authors work for the company that makes the patch, and the paper declares no conflict of interest.

One small study

Source [01]

How fast water escapes through the skin, and how the eye area sits

Skin constantly loses a little water to the air, and how fast it does that is a standard way of asking whether the outer barrier is intact. In the same patch study that rate fell on the treated side at one and two weeks and did not move on the untreated side. A photographic measure of how much the outer corner of the eye lifted also moved further on the treated side. A suction measure of the skin's springiness improved within the treated group but was no different from the untreated side, which is the more honest of the two results.

Measured in the same 21 people. Water loss was significantly lower on the treated side than the hyaluronic-acid-only side at days 7 and 14 (p < 0.05). Eye lifting differed between the sides at day 14 (p < 0.05). Springiness did not differ between the sides at any point. As above, three active ingredients were on one side and none on the other.

One small study

Source [01]

Fine lines on the face, when there is nothing to compare against

Two longer studies put products containing SNAP-8 on people's faces for twelve weeks and measured whether the skin looked better than it had at the start. Both report that it did. Neither had a comparison group, so neither can tell the difference between what the product did and what twelve weeks of a controlled skincare routine, better hydration and knowing you are in a study do on their own. One of the two also had four other active ingredients in the same patch; the other was a commercial serum with an undisclosed blend.

Measured in people against their own starting point only. The patch study ran 12 weeks with the peptide alongside an arginine and lysine polypeptide, palmitoyl tripeptide-5, adenosine and seaweed extracts; its abstract does not say how many people took part, and its full text is behind a paywall. The serum study enrolled 33 women aged 35 to 55 and 31 finished, applying it twice a day for 12 weeks; it was run and written by employees of the company that owns the brand.

One small study

Source [02]Source [04]

Skin cells in a dish

The only laboratory work published on this peptide is not about wrinkles or muscles at all. A polymer chemistry group loaded it onto plastic nanoparticles to see how much would stick and how slowly it would come off again, then checked whether the loaded particles poisoned cells. They did not. That is the whole biological result: cells stayed alive. Nothing about nerve signals, muscle or skin was measured.

Measured in mouse connective-tissue cells and human skin cells grown in dishes, over 24 hours. On the first of two tests cell survival stayed above 90% across every concentration; the second showed no obvious drop either. The peptide stuck to the particles at up to 220.69 mg per gram. No animal and no person was involved.

Only seen in a dish, not in a body

Source [13]

The nerve ending that tells a facial muscle to contract

This is the entire reason the ingredient exists, and no published experiment has ever tested it. The idea is borrowed whole from Argireline: the peptide copies the first stretch of a protein called SNAP-25, which nerve endings use to dock and dump their chemical signal, so a copy floating about should get in the way and the muscle should pull less hard. SNAP-8 copies two amino acids more of that protein than Argireline does. The numbers offered for how well it works — a 43% drop in signal release at a particular strength — come from the ingredient maker, restated in a review whose only source for that whole paragraph is the manufacturer's own website.

Never measured in any published study, in any species, in a dish or otherwise. A search of the published literature for this peptide with the docking machinery returns reviews describing the manufacturer's claim and nothing that tested it. For the six-amino-acid sibling, where the laboratory work does exist, a 2025 review concluded the amounts that reach the skin are "not sufficiently effective to achieve penetration into the deeper layers of the dermis, which is necessary to inhibit muscle contraction".

Claimed, never tested

Source [03]Source [05]Source [14]

The dead outer layer of the skin, and whether anything gets past it

Unknown, and not for want of anyone asking the question about this family of ingredients. For Argireline there are laboratory measurements on real human skin: 0.22% of what was applied stayed in the dead outer layer, 0.01% reached the living layer beneath, and nothing was found deeper. For SNAP-8 there is no equivalent measurement of any kind. The only published attempts to get it into skin bypass the question rather than answer it, by pushing it through with microscopic needles or loading it onto particles.

Never measured. No absorption, distribution, breakdown or excretion study of this peptide exists in any species. The published microneedle work measured how deep the needles went into pig skin, not where the peptide went afterwards.

Claimed, never tested

Source [01]Source [08]

No published study has tested SNAP-8 on its own against a dummy cream on anybody. Three studies in people exist, and in every one the peptide was one active among several in the product being tested. The only one with a comparison arm (Shin and colleagues 2024, Ann Dermatol; 24 enrolled, 21 completed) put a dissolving microneedle patch under one eye and a patch of hyaluronic acid alone under the other, and all five skin-roughness measures differed between the two sides at 28 days — but the treated patch also carried a vitamin C derivative at 5% and a fatty signalling molecule at 4% against a patch with neither, so nothing measured can be traced to the peptide. The other two studies (Avcil 2020, five actives, 12 weeks; Moy 2023, 31 women, 12 weeks) report no comparison group at all. The wrinkle percentages the ingredient is actually sold on come from none of these: two peer-reviewed papers repeat the manufacturer's own numbers and name the source in their reference lists, and the two sets disagree — up to 38% with an average of 7.1% in one, a maximum of 62% with a mean of 35% in the other. That supplier material contributed nothing to this grade; the grade rests only on the three published papers. ClinicalTrials.gov returns no registered study for SNAP-8 or acetyl octapeptide-3, quoted or unquoted.

In the one study with a comparison side, the fastest measure moved after a single two-hour application and one roughness measure had moved by day 7. Water loss through the skin differed from the untreated side at days 7 and 14, and lift at day 14; all five roughness measures differed by day 28. That study stopped at 28 days. The two longer studies ran 12 weeks; the serum study reported improvement at every check from week 4 onwards, and neither had anything to compare against. Nothing has been measured beyond 12 weeks, and no study has followed anyone after they stopped using the product.

What was measuredWhat happenedIn whomHow it is known

Roughness of the skin around the eye, measured five ways

All five roughness measures were significantly different on the patch side than on the hyaluronic-acid-only side at day 28 (p < 0.05). Two of them had already moved within the treated side by day 14. The untreated side drifted downwards on two measures but never significantly. The paper reports statistical tests only and plots the percentage changes in figures, so there is no point estimate in the text to quote for either side.

24 adults aged 30 to 65 with eye wrinkles, 21 of whom finished. One patch under each eye, nightly for 14 days and then every third day to day 28. The active patch carried three actives — 5% vitamin C derivative, 4% cyclic lysophosphatidic acid, 0.03% SNAP-8 — and the comparison patch carried none of them.

One small study

Source [01]

Water escaping through the skin around the eye

Lower on the patch side at days 7 and 14 (p < 0.05), against no significant change at any point on the hyaluronic-acid-only side, and significantly different between the two sides at both of those visits. The authors read this as evidence the microscopic needles did not damage the barrier.

The same 21 people, over 28 days, one eye against the other.

One small study

Source [01]

Springiness of the skin, and lift at the outer corner of the eye

Lift moved further on the patch side than on the hyaluronic-acid-only side at day 14 (p < 0.05). Springiness rose within the patch side but was no different between the two sides at any visit — that is, the one measure that had a clean comparison and failed it is the springiness measure.

The same 21 people, over 28 days, one eye against the other.

One small study

Source [01]

Fine lines and wrinkles after twelve weeks of a five-ingredient patch

A 25.8% decrease, alongside 15.4% more skin hydration and 14.2% more skin density. There is no comparison figure to set beside any of them, because the study reports no comparison group: every number is against the same people at the start. The abstract does not state how many people that was.

Healthy adults with aged skin, patches applied at the outer corner of each eye and on the forearm for 12 weeks. Authors from the company that makes the product, a contract testing laboratory and the patch manufacturer.

One small study

Source [04]

Wrinkle severity, fine lines and firmness after twelve weeks of a commercial serum

Significant improvement from each person's own starting point on the forehead, the crow's feet and the upper lip at every visit, judged by a dermatologist on a rating scale, plus a rise in measured skin water. Again there is no comparison arm, so there is no figure for what happened to skin that did not get the serum. Only forehead wrinkles at four weeks failed to reach the study's own bar for a clinically meaningful change.

33 white women aged 35 to 55 with fine lines enrolled at an independent research site in Cape Town; 31 completed. Serum applied twice a day to the whole face for 12 weeks, on top of a supplied cleanser, sunscreen and body lotion. Acetyl octapeptide-3 is one active in an undisclosed blend of peptides, proteins, amino acids and marine extracts.

One small study

Source [02]

The wrinkle-depth percentages the ingredient is actually sold on

There is no readable study behind them, and the two peer-reviewed papers that repeat them do not agree with each other. One reports a best case of 38% less wrinkle depth and an average of 7.1%, over 28 days, from a cream holding 3% of a 0.05% solution of the peptide — and names its source in the reference list as the manufacturer's product page. The other reports a best case of 62% and an average of 35%, citing the same company's website. No comparison figure for untreated skin is given in either case, and neither underlying study has been published anywhere a reader can check it.

Unknown. Neither paper states how many people were in the manufacturer's study, how they were selected, whether anyone was blinded, or what the other side of the face received.

Claimed, never tested

Source [02]Source [03]Source [15]

Nothing was reported in the published studies, and those studies are far too small and short to find anything uncommon: 21 people over 28 days with a patch, and a 12-week study whose abstract does not say how many people took part. Against that, no expert panel has assessed the ingredient, and there is no published test of repeated dosing, of an allergy building up with use, of effects on pregnancy or of cancer risk. Nobody has measured how much of it gets past the outer skin, or what happens to it after that, in any species. The only laboratory safety data is 24 hours of cell survival in a dish. An absence of reported problems is not the same thing as documented safety.

EffectWhat it feels likeHow often

A serious event during the longest study, judged unrelated to the productSerious

One person left the study because of a serious adverse event that the investigators recorded as not related to the product, and a second was lost to follow-up. The paper does not say what the event was. It is listed here because a serious event happened during a study of a product containing this ingredient, not because anything links the two.

1 of 33 people in the twelve-week serum study.

Source [02]

Redness, swelling, flaking, itching, stinging or burning where a patch was applied

The study asked about each of these by name at every visit: researchers looked for redness, swelling and flaking, and participants were asked about itching, stinging, burning, tightness and prickling. Nothing was reported despite the patch physically making small holes in the skin every night for two weeks. Twenty-one people over four weeks is far too few and far too short to find anything uncommon.

None recorded in 21 people over 28 days — and none on the comparison side either, so there is no difference between the two to report.

Source [01]

A skin reaction that builds up over repeated use of a patch

The report states the product was tolerated well and that no participant reported either an immediate or a cumulative skin reaction. There was no comparison group, so this is an absence of reports rather than a rate measured against anything, and the number it rests on is not stated in the part of the paper that can be read without paying.

None reported over 12 weeks. The abstract does not say in how many people.

Source [04]

Anything a proper safety assessment would look for

The six-amino-acid sibling has a US Cosmetic Ingredient Review safety assessment covering irritation, allergy, absorption and repeated daily use, which concluded it is safe up to 0.005% and that there is not enough data above that. Nothing equivalent exists for SNAP-8: no published repeated-dose study, no allergy patch test, no reproductive or developmental study, no cancer study. The only laboratory safety data anyone has published is 24 hours of cell survival in a dish.

Not measured. No expert panel has assessed this ingredient.

Source [08]Source [13]

These are the amounts the studies below gave their participants, and they are here as facts about those studies. They are not a recommendation, not a starting point and not a range to pick from. What a person should take, if anything, is a question for a doctor who knows them.

Shin and colleagues 2024, the only study with a comparison arm — eye wrinkles, one eye against the other

A dissolving patch of 140 microscopic needles about 350 micrometres long, made of 90% hyaluronic acid with 5% vitamin C derivative, 4% cyclic lysophosphatidic acid and 0.03% SNAP-8. The comparison patch was hyaluronic acid only

Once a night for 14 days, then once every 3 days to day 28

Source [01]

Avcil and colleagues 2020, a five-ingredient patch with no comparison group

A hyaluronic acid microneedle patch holding an arginine and lysine polypeptide, acetyl octapeptide-3, palmitoyl tripeptide-5, adenosine and seaweed extracts. The abstract does not state the strength of any of them, and the full text is paywalled

12 weeks

Source [04]

Moy and colleagues 2023, a commercial serum in 33 women, no comparison group

A commercially sold facial serum containing acetyl octapeptide-3 in an undisclosed blend, applied twice a day to the whole face. The strength is not published

12 weeks, with checks at 4, 8 and 12 weeks

Source [02]

The manufacturer's own unpublished split-face study, as described in a peer-reviewed paper that cites the company's product page for it

A cream containing 3% of a 0.05% acetyl octapeptide-3 solution, applied twice a day to one side of the face

28 days. Nothing else about the study — how many people, how they were chosen, what the other side received — has been published

Source [02]

What people report

• Whether SNAP-8 does anything on its own. Every published study in people tested it inside a mixture of several active ingredients.
• Whether any of it reaches a facial muscle. No published experiment has tested the peptide against the nerve machinery it is designed to block, in any system.
• How much of it gets past the dead outer layer of the skin — no penetration study of this peptide exists, on human skin or any other.
• What happens to it once it is inside a body: nobody has published how it is absorbed, where it goes, how it is broken down or how it leaves, in any species.
• Whether it is better than Argireline, worse, or the same. The comparison the whole product idea rests on has never been run.
• What the manufacturer's own study actually found: how many people were in it, how they were selected, whether anyone was blinded, and what the untreated side of the face did.
• Why the manufacturer's own figures differ so much between the two peer-reviewed papers that repeat them — 38% best case in one, 62% in the other.
• What repeated use does over months or years. The longest published study ran 12 weeks and had no comparison group.
• Whether it can cause an allergy that builds up with repeated contact — no repeated patch test has been published.
• Whether it affects fertility, pregnancy or an unborn child: no reproductive or developmental study exists.
• Whether it raises or lowers cancer risk — no such study has been done.
• What strength is safe, and what strength is used. No expert panel has assessed this ingredient, and the published studies range from 0.03% in a patch to 3% of a 0.05% solution in a cream.
• What happens after stopping — no study has followed anyone once they put the product down.
• What people who use it actually experience. No readable venue of user accounts could be opened for this record, so the register reports the gap rather than filling it.

Does SNAP-8 work?

Nobody has published a study that could answer that. Three studies in people have tested products containing it, and in every one it was mixed with other active ingredients, so nothing measured can be traced to SNAP-8 rather than to the vitamin C, the hyaluronic acid or the rest. The one study that had a fair comparison — a patch on one eye, a plain hyaluronic acid patch on the other — found the treated eye smoother after 28 days, but the treated patch carried three actives and the comparison patch carried none.

Source [01]Source [02]Source [04]

Where does the 63% wrinkle reduction claim come from?

From the company that sells the ingredient, not from a trial. Two peer-reviewed papers repeat the manufacturer's numbers and say where they got them, and the two sets do not match: one gives a best case of 38% with an average of 7.1% over 28 days, citing the company's product page, and the other gives a best case of 62% with an average of 35%, citing the same company's website. Notice that the figures that travel are the best cases, not the averages, and that no underlying study has ever been published for anyone to check.

Source [02]Source [03]

SNAP-8 vs Argireline — which is better?

No study has ever compared them, so nobody knows. They are the same molecule two amino acids apart: both copy a stretch of the same nerve protein, and SNAP-8 copies a bit more of it. What differs is the evidence behind them, and it differs in Argireline's favour. Argireline has its own trials, its own measurements of how far it gets into human skin, and a US expert safety assessment. SNAP-8 has none of those three. Being the newer and longer version is a chemistry fact, not a result.

Source [05]Source [08]Source [14]

Is SNAP-8 safe? What are the side effects?

Nothing has been reported in the published studies, and those studies are far too small and short to find anything uncommon. Twenty-one people used a patch containing it for 28 days with no reaction on either the treated or the untreated eye, and a twelve-week study reported no skin reactions either. Against that: no expert panel has ever assessed this ingredient, there is no published test of repeated dosing, allergy, effects on pregnancy or cancer risk, and no one has measured what happens to it once it is past the skin. An absence of reports is not the same thing as documented safety.

Source [01]Source [04]Source [08]

Is SNAP-8 legal, and can you buy it?

Yes, and yes — it is an ordinary cosmetic ingredient, sold under the label name Acetyl Octapeptide-3 in serums and creams across the EU and elsewhere. Being legal to sell says nothing about whether it works: EU cosmetics law requires no proof of effect before sale, only that whoever sells it can produce "adequate and verifiable evidence" for the claims they actually make. Claiming that a cream relaxes muscles or replaces an injection can push a product into the legal definition of a medicine, which is a different and much stricter regime.

Source [09]Source [10]Source [12]

Has SNAP-8 ever been in a clinical trial?

Not one that was registered. The public trials registry returns no studies at all for SNAP-8 or for acetyl octapeptide-3, with the search term in quotation marks or without it. The three studies that exist were run and published without registration, two of them by people employed by the company selling the product being tested.

Source [01]Source [07]

Can you inject SNAP-8?

There is no published study of injecting it, in people or in animals, and no measurement of what happens to it inside a body. It is sold as something to put on skin. For the closely related six-amino-acid version, the one published account of injection is a case report of a woman who developed a stubborn deep infection in her forehead and temples that took five months of two antibiotics to clear and left scars.

Source [13]Source [16]

Each letter represents one amino acid.

1. [01]Shin JY, Han D, Yoon KY, Jeong DH, Park YI. Clinical safety and efficacy evaluation of a dissolving microneedle patch having dual anti-wrinkle effects with safe and long-term activities. Ann Dermatol 2024;36(4):215-224 (24 enrolled, 21 completed; patch of 5% AA2G, 4% NcPA, 0.03% SNAP-8, 90% hyaluronic acid against a hyaluronic-acid-only patch on the other eye) (2024)
2. [02]Moy M, Diaz I, Lesniak E, Giancola G. Peptide-pro complex serum: investigating effects on aged skin. J Cosmet Dermatol 2023;22(1):267-274 — 33 enrolled, 31 completed, 12 weeks, no control group; prints "wrinkle depth was lowered by up to 38%. On average, wrinkle depth decreased by 7.1%" and cites it to reference 17, The Lubrizol Corporation's SNAP-8 peptide solution C product page (2023)
3. [03]Errante F, Ledwoń P, Latajka R, Rovero P, Papini AM. Cosmeceutical peptides in the framework of sustainable wellness economy. Front Chem 2020;8:572923 — gives Ac-Glu-Glu-Met-Gln-Arg-Arg-Ala-Asp-NH2 and attributes the 43% inhibition at 1.5 mM and the −62% maximum / −35% mean wrinkle figures to Lipotec's own website (2020)
4. [04]Avcil M, Akman G, Klokkers J, Jeong D, Çelik A. Efficacy of bioactive peptides loaded on hyaluronic acid microneedle patches: a monocentric clinical study. J Cosmet Dermatol 2020;19(2):328-337 (12 weeks, five actives including acetyl octapeptide-3, no comparison group; full text paywalled, HTTP 402) (2020)
5. [05]UniProt P60880 (SNP25_HUMAN) — FASTA sequence showing EEMQRRAD at residues 12–19, of which EEMQRR (12–17) is acetyl hexapeptide-8
6. [06]PubChem: Acetyl octapeptide-3 (CID 76283482) — C41H70N16O16S, 1075.2 g/mol, CAS 868844-74-0; the IUPAC name gives all eight residues as standard L-amino acids with an N-terminal acetyl group and a C-terminal amide
7. [07]ClinicalTrials.gov API v2, quoted search for "acetyl octapeptide-3": totalCount 0. The same query unquoted, and quoted and unquoted searches for "SNAP-8", "acetyl octapeptide" and "octapeptide-3", also return 0
8. [08]CIR revised tentative safety assessment of Acetyl Hexapeptide-8 Amide, released 16 December 2020 — the assessment that exists for the six-amino-acid sibling; its scope covers no octapeptide (2020)
9. [09]Regulation (EC) No 1223/2009 on cosmetic products (EUR-Lex, CELEX 32009R1223) (2009)
10. [10]Commission Regulation (EU) No 655/2013 on common criteria for claims made about cosmetic products (EUR-Lex, CELEX 32013R0655) (2013)
11. [11]WADA: World Anti-Doping Code International Standard – Prohibited List 2026 (in force 1 January 2026); the full text names no octapeptide, no hexapeptide and no cosmetic peptide in any section (2026)
12. [12]Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use (EUR-Lex, CELEX 32001L0083) — Article 1(2), 'restoring, correcting or modifying physiological functions in human beings' (2001)
13. [13]Baglamis S, Feyzioğlu-Demir E, Akgöl S. New insight into anti-wrinkle treatment: using nanoparticles as a controlled release system to increase acetyl octapeptide-3 efficiency. Polym Bull 2023;80:12659-12681 (2023)
14. [14]Acetyl hexapeptide-8 in cosmeceuticals — a review of skin permeability and efficacy. Int J Mol Sci 2025;26(12):5722 — on the six-amino-acid sibling, not on this one (2025)
15. [15]Resende DISP, Ferreira MS, Sousa-Lobo JM, Sousa E, Almeida IF. Usage of synthetic peptides in cosmetics for sensitive skin. Pharmaceuticals (Basel) 2021;14:702 — "Most of the available information regarding these ingredients is not reported in peer-reviewed scientific journals, but rather in patents and supplier brochures." The paper analysed 88 facial cosmetics and does not cover this ingredient (2021)
16. [16]Mycobacterium abscessus infection after facial injection of argireline: a case report (World Journal of Clinical Cases, 2021) — the hexapeptide, not this molecule (2021)