Myristoyl Pentapeptide-17 (MPP-17), Myristoyl Hexapeptide-16 (MH-16) and Biotinoyl Tripeptide-1 (BT-1) are three cosmetic peptides frequently seen in lash and brow serum ingredient lists. They differ in structure, lipid modification and supplier-level positioning, and they are not interchangeable raw materials. This page compares them for formulators and buyers deciding which peptide - or combination - fits a specific product brief.
None of these peptides should be treated as interchangeable with prescription ingredients or with vitamins. Their role in a formula is conditioning- and appearance-oriented, and the choice between them is a formulation decision, not a medical one.
Quick Comparison
| Peptide | Main Positioning (Supplier Level) | Common Applications |
|---|---|---|
| Myristoyl Pentapeptide-17 | Keratin- and lash-conditioning-related positioning | Lash and brow serums |
| Myristoyl Hexapeptide-16 | Hair-conditioning- and keratin-related positioning | Lash, brow and hair serums |
| Biotinoyl Tripeptide-1 | Hair-anchoring- and conditioning-related positioning | Lash and scalp products |
All mechanism descriptions above reflect supplier-level positioning and should not be read as confirmed clinical outcomes. Presence in commercial formulas is common for all three, but frequency of use does not equal strength of evidence.
All three peptides are synthetic cosmetic ingredients rather than vitamins or drugs. Their supplier literature describes conditioning- and appearance-oriented mechanisms, which is why they appear in similar product categories; the practical differences show up in structure, dosing and formulation behavior rather than in dramatic functional differences.
Structural Differences
| Attribute | MPP-17 | MH-16 | BT-1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of amino acids | 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Lipid / modifier | Myristoyl (C14) | Myristoyl (C14) | Biotinoyl |
| Common sequence reference | Myr-Lys-Leu-Ala-Lys-Lys-NH₂ | Supplier records differ; confirm on COA | Biotin-Gly-His-Lys |
| Molecular weight (approx.) | ~796 g/mol | ~910 g/mol | ~567 g/mol |
| CAS number | 959610-30-1 | 959610-54-9 | 299157-54-3 |
| Terminal form / salt | Confirm on batch COA | Confirm on batch COA | Confirm on batch COA |
MPP-17 and MH-16 are both myristoylated (C14 fatty acid) peptides that differ in chain length. BT-1 uses a different type of modification: the peptide is conjugated to biotin rather than a fatty acid, and its sequence is commonly described as biotinyl-Gly-His-Lys (biotinyl-GHK).
The structural identity of the exact supplied material is the first thing to confirm, because supplier records can vary. For MH-16 in particular, published supplier sequences differ (for example Myr-Leu-Lys-Lys-Thr-Glu-Thr versus Myr-Leu-Lys-Lys-Ala-Leu-Lys), so the sequence, terminal form and salt status must be verified on the batch-specific COA rather than assumed from the INCI name alone.
Molecular weight and sequence are not academic details for a buyer: they determine the active-content basis, the dosing calculation and the analytical methods used to verify identity. A material labelled with the same INCI name can still differ in sequence, terminal form or salt status between suppliers, which is why batch-specific documentation matters more than the ingredient name.
Which Peptide Is Most Relevant to Lash Serums?
MPP-17 appears frequently in commercial lash and brow serum ingredient lists, which is one reason it is often the starting point for a lash peptide brief. But frequency of use is a formulation observation, not a clinical ranking.
The right choice depends on the product target: a conditioning-focused lash serum may be built around MPP-17, a hair-and-lash dual product may consider MH-16, and a formula emphasizing anchoring-related claims may look at BT-1. None of these choices is a substitute for confirming the actual material, its active content and the finished-product evidence for the specific formula.
The public evidence base for all three peptides is limited and largely supplier-led. Finished-lash-serum studies typically involve multi-ingredient formulas, so results cannot be attributed to a single peptide. Buyers should evaluate each material on identity, active content and the finished-product data that the brand can actually substantiate.
From a sourcing perspective, the three peptides also differ in supply maturity. MPP-17 and MH-16 are widely available as myristoylated powders, while Biotinoyl Tripeptide-1 is commonly supplied as a powder that dissolves readily in water-based formulas. Availability and supplied form should be part of the comparison, alongside the peptide chemistry itself.
Can These Peptides Be Combined?
Yes - combinations of these peptides appear in commercial lash and brow serums, often alongside panthenol, hyaluronic acid and other conditioning ingredients. Combining peptides may address different cosmetic conditioning directions in one formula.
However, combination does not automatically improve the finished product. Compatibility, stability and eye-area tolerance must be evaluated experimentally for the exact materials and the complete formula. More peptides in the INCI list is not the same as a better-performing product, and each added active increases the variables that must be tested.
Common commercial combinations pair a myristoylated peptide with Biotinoyl Tripeptide-1 and conditioning ingredients such as panthenol and hyaluronic acid. When building such a combination, each peptide should still be verified individually - identity, assay and batch documentation - before blending, and the final formula should be tested as a whole.
Single-Peptide vs Multi-Peptide Formulas
| Consideration | Single-Peptide | Multi-Peptide |
|---|---|---|
| Cost | Lower raw-material cost | Higher raw-material cost |
| Claim story | Simpler, easier to trace | Richer, but harder to attribute |
| Stability work | Fewer compatibility variables | More interaction variables |
| Testing difficulty | Lower analytical complexity | Higher analytical complexity |
| Formulation complexity | Lower | Higher |
| Label transparency | Simpler INCI | Longer INCI |
Neither approach is inherently better. A single-peptide formula is easier to document and control; a multi-peptide formula offers a broader conditioning story but requires more stability and compatibility work before the finished-product claim can be supported.
For a small brand entering the category, a single-peptide system is often the more defensible starting point: fewer raw materials, simpler documentation and an easier path to a substantiated claim. A multi-peptide system becomes more attractive when the product brief demands a broader conditioning story and the brand has the analytical and stability capacity to support it.
How Should Brands Select a Peptide System?
Selection should be driven by the finished-product brief, not by ingredient popularity:
- Product claim: What exactly will the label say - conditioning, appearance support, or something else?
- Target consumer: Eye-sensitivity profiles and usage expectations vary by market and audience
- Eye-area tolerance: The complete formula, not the peptide alone, determines tolerance
- Dosage basis: Active peptide content per the assay, not HPLC purity alone
- Supplier documentation: Batch COA, TDS and identity data for each peptide
- Formulation stability: Compatibility with the carrier, preservatives and packaging
- Target cost: Compare on an active-peptide basis
- Regulatory market: Claim language and ingredient status vary by country
A peptide system should be selected after the claim and target consumer are defined - not before.
In practice, the selection order should be: define the label claim, confirm the target consumer and eye-tolerance requirements, then shortlist peptides that fit that brief, request COA and identity data for each, evaluate small samples in the intended vehicle, and only then scale the formulation.
What Should Buyers Ask the Supplier?
Whether an independent COA can be provided for each peptide
Whether LC-MS identity confirmation is available
Whether the material is pure powder or a premixed solution
The actual active peptide content of the supplied material
Whether small samples can be evaluated before ordering
Whether custom blends are supported
Whether batch-to-batch consistency is documented
These questions apply equally to MPP-17, MH-16 and BT-1. The INCI name is a label; the sequence, terminal form, active content and supplied form are the facts a buyer can verify.
Documentation quality is a practical differentiator. Suppliers that can provide independent COA data, LC-MS identity reports and consistent batch specifications reduce the buyer's verification burden - and that documentation becomes part of the brand's own regulatory file for the finished product.
FAQ
Is Myristoyl Pentapeptide-17 better than Myristoyl Hexapeptide-16?
Not in an absolute sense. They are different myristoylated peptides with different chain lengths and supplier-level positioning. The better choice depends on the product brief, the claim and the formulation target.
Can these peptides be used together?
Yes, combinations appear in commercial lash and brow serums. Compatibility, stability and eye-area tolerance should still be evaluated for the exact materials and finished formula.
Is Biotinoyl Tripeptide-1 the same as biotin?
No. BT-1 is a synthetic tripeptide (commonly biotinyl-Gly-His-Lys) modified with biotin. It is not the vitamin biotin itself, and the two should not be treated as the same material for formulation or claims.
Which peptide is suitable for eyebrow serum?
All three appear in brow products in the category. The choice should follow the claim and finished-formula target rather than ingredient popularity.
Does a multi-peptide serum always work better?
No. More peptides add cost, complexity and testing variables. A well-documented single-peptide formula can be more appropriate than an unverified multi-peptide blend.
References
- PubChem CID 127264611 - Myristoyl Pentapeptide-17. National Center for Biotechnology Information. https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/127264611
- NIH GSRS - Biotinoyl Tripeptide-1 (UNII O6380721VA). National Institutes of Health. https://gsrs.ncats.nih.gov/ginas/app/ui/substances/588101cc-26fb-4a23-a870-d6aa6f0b11a0
- Danish Environmental Protection Agency. Survey and risk assessment of eyelash and brow serums. 2025. https://www2.mst.dk/Udgiv/publications/2025/05/978-87-7038-999-0a.pdf
- Eyelash serums: A comprehensive review. Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology. 2024. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jocd.16278