SS-31 / Elamipretide: Identity, Nomenclature and Documentation Review

Research use only. This page does not provide human or veterinary use, dosing, administration, safety, or outcome guidance.

Material names and source preparations

SS-31 literature uses several names and experimental preparations. PMID 23813215 reports the material and model stated by its authors; PMID 32554501 reports a biotinylated preparation, isolated mitochondria, and LC-MS interaction mapping. The two preparations and systems should remain separate records.

1. Which material name does the source actually use?
2. What preparation and experimental system did the authors study?
3. What does the document for the specific catalogue item state?

Keeping these questions separate makes a source note easier to audit. It also prevents a result from a defined experiment from being presented as a property of a different received batch.

Start with the exact material name

SS-31, elamipretide, and MTP-131 are names used in literature records; each source must retain the name and preparation it reports. The first check is simple: copy the name exactly as it appears in the paper before normalising it in a laboratory note. That preserves distinctions which are easy to lose when a result is summarised later.

The preparation matters just as much as the name. An unlabelled SS-31 entry, a polarity-sensitive fluorescent analogue, and biotinylated SS-31 may all appear in the same search results. They are related records, not interchangeable descriptions of one vial. When a paper names a label, analogue, salt, or modification, keep that wording beside the citation.

Public compound record

PubChem lists Elamipretide as CID 11764719 with molecular formula C32H49N9O5 and molecular weight 639.8. This is a useful reference point when checking a public compound name or molecular-mass field.

Catalogue record

The linked Peptides Bio record identifies SS-31 10mg and states a molecular weight of 639.79 g/mol. It identifies the catalogue presentation, not the preparation used in every published experiment.

Practical check

Keep three fields visible in the source note: the source term, the preparation detail, and the identifier for the material in hand. If one of those fields is absent, record the gap instead of assuming equivalence.

Two primary sources, two different kinds of evidence

These papers are useful precisely because they do not ask the same question. Reading them side by side shows why the preparation and system must stay attached to the citation.

Birk et al., 2013: a fluorescent analogue and a renal-ischemia model

Birk et al. (PMID 23813215) reported The mitochondrial-targeted compound SS-31 re-energizes ischemic mitochondria by interacting with cardiolipin. The authors used a polarity-sensitive fluorescent analogue of SS-31 to examine its interaction with cardiolipin. The same report also includes a rat renal-ischemia and reperfusion model.

Those details answer a narrow question: what did the authors observe for that analogue, with that analytical approach, in that model? A useful source note should therefore retain four items together: the fluorescent analogue, the cardiolipin-interaction question, the rat model, and the endpoint context. Removing those details turns a specific experiment into an unsupported general statement.

Chavez et al., 2020: biotinylated SS-31 in isolated mouse-heart mitochondria

Chavez et al. (PMID 32554501) reported Mitochondrial protein interaction landscape of SS-31. Their experimental overview used biotinylated SS-31 with mitochondria isolated from mouse hearts. The team then used chemical cross-linking and LC-MS to identify the reported interaction map.

This paper asks a different question from the Birk study. It is about an interaction map for a tagged preparation in isolated heart mitochondria, rather than a fluorescent-analogue study in a renal-ischemia model. That contrast is the point: both sources can inform a literature search, but neither one is a certificate of identity, purity, stability, or expected result for a separate catalogue batch.

How to use the comparison

Start with the research question. If the question concerns reported cardiolipin interaction, record the Birk paper’s analogue and model. If it concerns the interaction-mapping approach, record the Chavez paper’s biotinylated preparation, isolated-mitochondria system, and LC-MS method. Do not merge their methods, models, or material descriptions into one generic claim about SS-31.

How to connect a paper to the material in hand

1. Record the product name, labelled amount, current SKU, and lot or batch reference from the received item.
2. Record the paper’s exact material term, preparation detail, model or system, method, comparator, and reported endpoint.
3. Keep the paper citation and the batch document as separate files or fields, then link them only through the research question being reviewed.
4. Mark an unreported field as unreported. Do not fill it with a value from another paper, product listing, or batch document.

This process is deliberately narrow: it helps a reader trace what each record says. It does not establish transferability between preparations or predict an outcome.

Document request checklist

When requesting documentation for SS-31 10mg, include the exact product name and SKU, the required document type, and the relevant lot or batch reference when available. Review the returned record for the material name, lot identifier, document date, stated analytical method, and reported result. A chromatographic area percentage, for example, should remain attached to the stated method; it is not a substitute for a sequence or mass-identity record.

For a general record-review workflow, see Reviewing COA, MSDS and batch records. For the site-wide scope of catalogue information, see Research-use boundaries.

SS-31, elamipretide, and preparation records

Names reported in the cited literature

SS-31, elamipretide, and MTP-131 occur as names in the cited literature. The cited sources also report distinct preparations, including an analogue or labelled preparation; retain each reported name and preparation detail with its own source record.

Can a published paper verify a current product batch?

No. A paper records the authors’ material and methods. A batch document records only the fields stated for its named material or lot.

What should remain visible in a source note?

The source link, exact material wording, preparation detail, experimental system, method, comparator, endpoint, and author-stated limitations should remain together.

Related records

• SS-31 10mg product record
• Reviewing COA, MSDS and batch records
• Research-use boundaries