Polypeptide fraction from porcine cardiac tissue, registered in Russia for cardiac dystrophy and post-infarct recovery. Distinct from the synthetic Cardiogen (AEDR tetrapeptide). same programme, different chemistry.
mechanism confidence: none (literature gap)
Compound name appears in the Khavinson peptide registry but the dedicated primary literature on Cardialin® as a product is essentially absent in CyberLeninka. The 6 papers surfaced in the audit are all tangential. most are about BRAIN NATRIURETIC PEPTIDE (BNP), which is a different molecule entirely, used as a CHF biomarker. The Khavinson school paper (Shabanov 2008, peptide pharmacology review) is the closest direct reference but covers cortexin and cerebrolysin, not cardialin specifically. The other "cardiac" papers (Mexicor antiarrhythmic, IF-current blockade in MI) are unrelated to the peptide product. CONCLUSION: cardialin has essentially no published dedicated pharmacology in open Russian literature. it exists in the peptide family listing but has not been the focus of a primary study.
- No direct primary literature on Cardialin® product identified in CyberLeninka audit
- Most "cardialin" search hits are about BRAIN NATRIURETIC PEPTIDE (BNP). a different molecule used as CHF biomarker (Bekmuradova 2020, Egorova 2014, Yarmukhamedova 2020). these are NOT about the Cardialin peptide
- Adjacent: Shabanov 2008 peptide pharmacology review. covers cortexin and cerebrolysin (not cardialin specifically)
- Adjacent: Mexicor antiarrhythmic effect in CHF (Nikolenko 2008), IF-current blockade in rat MI (Kuptsova 2021). all unrelated
grade: Effectively absent. The compound name may be confused with BNP (brain natriuretic peptide) in literature search. This is a real research gap.
- Does cardialin exist as a registered product?
- Is the compound sequence known? Registry says yes but CyberLeninka has no direct studies
- Is there a fundamental publication bias against publishing cardialin-specific results?
- Is the registry entry correct or a transcription error?
no PubMed-indexed literature in the corpus.
Reviewed against the archive corpora on 2026-09-16. Source-grounded. No clinical claims. Synthesis prose may preserve published experimental context from papers; that is research history, not a recommendation.