OS-01: what the company-run skin trials show, and what they don't

OS-01 is one of the few “longevity” skin peptides with randomised human data: a 60-woman trial and a 22-person split-face trial, both 12 weeks and both double-blind. They report better skin barrier function and hydration than the comparison cream [3,4]. Every published OS-01 study, human and lab, was designed, funded or written by the company that owns the patent, and none has been independently repeated.

What it is

OS-01, also called Peptide 14 or Pep 14, came out of a screening programme at OneSkin, a US skincare company whose co-founders include researchers with Brazilian university affiliations. The team tested libraries of short peptides on human skin cells pushed into senescence, the state in which ageing or damaged cells stop dividing but stay put and release inflammatory signals. Peptide 14 was the standout [1]. The company describes it as “senotherapeutic”: meant to reduce the burden of senescent cells, rather than to moisturise or exfoliate.

In the 2023 discovery paper, Peptide 14 reduced markers of senescence in human dermal fibroblasts aged four different ways (a progeria gene mutation, age of the donor, UVB light and a chemotherapy drug), without obvious toxicity [1]. The authors traced its action to PP2A, an enzyme complex involved in DNA repair and cell-cycle control. On pieces of aged human skin kept alive in the lab, it shifted structure and gene activity towards a younger profile and lowered the skin's “DNA methylation age”, an epigenetic clock estimate [1]. A correction to that paper was published in 2024 [6].

All of this is cell culture and donated skin in a dish. Epigenetic clocks are estimates built from chemical tags on DNA, and a lower reading in lab-kept skin doesn't show that living skin ages more slowly. Its amino-acid sequence isn't given in the papers we read.

The human evidence

Split-face trial, 2024

The cleanest design of the three. Twenty-two people applied the OS-01 formulation to one side of the face and an identical cream without the peptide to the other for 12 weeks, with neither participants nor assessors told which side was which [3].

Trans-epidermal water loss measures how much water escapes through the skin, a standard marker of barrier function. The abstract says the formulation improved “one aspect” of barrier function [3]. Both sides of the face improved on texture and radiance; the OS-01 side improved more. Split-face designs are efficient because each person acts as their own control, though a cream on one cheek can't be fully kept off the other.

60 older women, 2025

Here 60 women aged 60 to 90 applied either an OS-01 body lotion or a commercial barrier-repair moisturiser to the body twice daily for 12 weeks [4]. The trial was randomised and double-blind. Twenty-five of 30 finished in the control group and 27 of 30 in the OS-01 group.

Reading the full paper, both groups improved significantly on trans-epidermal water loss compared with their own starting point; the OS-01 group's improvement was 41.49% on the forearm (p = 0.001) and 34.73% on the upper arm (p = 0.027) [4]. The methods describe paired tests within each group for skin measures and blood cytokines, and a between-group test only for the change in “GlycanAge”, a biological-age estimate from antibody sugar patterns [4]. So several headline findings are “this group changed from baseline”, not “this group beat the other group”.

Other reported results:

• 70% of the OS-01 group felt their skin looked better, versus 42% of the control group [4].
• In blood, IL-8 (p = 0.028) and IL-10 (p = 0.026) fell in the OS-01 group, while TNF-α and IFN-γ rose in the control group [4]. The authors read this as the skin barrier influencing whole-body inflammation. With 15 cytokines tested in each group and no correction for multiple comparisons described, a few significant results would be expected by chance.
• GlycanAge rose by an average of 0.72 years in controls over 12 weeks and changed by −0.07 years with OS-01 [4]. Biological-age tests over three months in 52 people are very noisy, and the paper's own text describes this as a trend.

Eye cream, 2025

Twenty-two people used an OS-01 eye formulation twice daily for 12 weeks. Water loss fell 17.33%, hydration rose 32.49%, firmness improved 10.19% and elasticity 25.58% compared with baseline, and 95.46% said their appearance improved [5]. There was no control group at all, and the product contained other active ingredients besides OS-01 [5]. Without a comparison group, gains from baseline could just as easily come from moisturising regularly for three months, or from the other ingredients, so this study can't separate the peptide from the cream.

Moisturiser effect or peptide effect?

The hardest thing about skincare trials is that the base cream does a lot of the work. Applying any well-formulated lotion twice a day for 12 weeks tends to improve hydration and barrier readings, and the 60-woman trial shows exactly that: the control moisturiser improved water loss too [4]. The question worth asking is how much extra the peptide adds.

Only one of the three studies isolates that. The split-face trial compared the same formulation with and without OS-01 on the same faces, and the peptide side did better on water loss and on graded wrinkles around the eyes [3]. That's the strongest piece of evidence that OS-01 itself contributes something. It's also one 22-person study, and the abstract doesn't give effect sizes for the difference between sides, so we can't tell you whether the gap is large or barely detectable.

A “senotherapeutic” label also implies a specific mechanism in living skin: fewer senescent cells. None of the human trials measured that. They measured water loss, hydration, elasticity, photographs and questionnaires, which are outcomes any good moisturiser can move. The mechanism rests on the lab work [1].

Who ran the studies

This is the most important context. The patent on OS-01 is owned solely by OneSkin, and the lead authors across the human and lab studies are the company's co-founders, employees or named patent inventors [1,4,5]. The discovery work was funded by the company alongside Brazilian research agencies [1]. Some co-authors of the eye study are paid advisers to the company [5].

Company-run trials aren't worthless; most new drugs are first tested by their makers. But the design choices, the outcomes emphasised and the decision to publish all sit with a party that sells the product. For a cosmetic, where there's no regulator reviewing the raw data before sale, independent replication matters even more, and there isn't any yet.

Safety and side effects

In a company-run toxicity package, Peptide 14 was mostly non-toxic to human skin cells up to 100 μM, passed standard genetic-damage tests (Ames, micronucleus, karyotyping), didn't irritate lab-grown skin, and caused no visible reactions in a patch test on 54 volunteers [2].

In the 60-woman trial, all three dropouts from the OS-01 group left because of moderate skin reactions, including persistent rash or spots and dry patches, which the authors said could have come from the product or the supplied cleanser [4]. That's three of 30 people. None of the five control-group dropouts cited skin reactions [4]. It's a small signal, but it's the only real-world adverse-event data we have.

Legal and regulatory status

OS-01 is sold as an ingredient in topical cosmetic products, not as a medicine. In the UK and the US, cosmetics don't need regulatory approval for effectiveness before sale, and they can't legally claim to treat disease. So the claims about “biological age” and systemic inflammation haven't been reviewed by any regulator. It isn't a licensed medicine anywhere we could find.

What we still don’t know

• Whether an independent team, without a financial stake, would get the same results.
• Whether OS-01 beats a good ordinary moisturiser when the comparison is made head to head, with between-group statistics.
• Whether it actually reduces senescent cells in living human skin; no trial has biopsied skin to check.
• Whether the blood cytokine and GlycanAge changes are real, repeatable and meaningful.
• What happens with use beyond 12 weeks.

Educational content only — not medical advice. Many peptides discussed on HPR are not approved for human use. Talk to a qualified clinician before making any decision about your health.

Free live webinar · Thursday 1 October · 7pm UK time

Join the next webinar: Introduction to Peptides

with Mitch O’Callaghan, ISSCA Peptide Therapist · Founder, Proper Protocols

Save my free placeHPR×Proper Protocols