Xi'an Mokemei Biotechnology

Xi'an Mokemei Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (trading as MKM; mokemeibiotechnology.com) is a research-compound supplier trading as MKM from Xi'an, Shaanxi, China, incorporated in 2016, distributing research peptides, SARMs and raw materials with batch documentation.^[1][2]

The organisation is one of twenty covered on PeptidePedia under Project:Vendor notability. Like the others, it distributes material labelled for research use only, which is not approved for human use in any major jurisdiction and is not manufactured under the quality obligations that apply to medicines.^[3]

This article describes what is verifiable. Where a statement rests on the organisation's own material it is attributed as such; where it rests on purchaser-submitted test reports the limitations of that evidence are stated; and where it rests on PeptidePedia's own reception tally it is labelled weak, self-reported evidence. Independent testing referred to throughout is that published by Janoshik Analytical, Medutest, PeptideMeter and VendorInvestigate.^[4]

Incorporated in 2016 in Xi'an, the organisation operates from the largest city in north-western China and, like the Chengdu entity, from outside the coastal manufacturing belt.^[1] Xi'an has a substantial pharmaceutical and botanical-extract sector, and the organisation's catalogue includes extract-derived materials alongside synthetic peptides, which is unusual among the entities covered here.^[2]

The documentary base is the registry record and the organisation's own material, plus purchaser reports. No independent coverage has been identified.

The organisation distributes through six regional warehouses rather than shipping every order from the manufacturing site: Netherlands (Rotterdam), serving European Union, typically 2-4 days; Germany (Hamburg), serving Germany, Austria, Switzerland, typically 2-4 days; United Kingdom (London), serving United Kingdom & Ireland, typically 2-3 days; United States (California), serving United States, typically 2-4 days; Canada (Toronto), serving Canada, typically 3-5 days; Australia (Melbourne), serving Australia & New Zealand, typically 3-5 days. Reports reaching this wiki describe orders being dispatched from stock held in the purchaser’s own country, which accounts for the delivery times members report.

Purchaser reports describe conventional vialled lyophilised material with a batch certificate.^[5] Reported certificate content has been variable within this set — some reporting purity and water, others purity alone — and two submissions noted a certificate whose lot identifier did not correspond to the vial label, which is a traceability failure rather than a quality finding but is recorded here because it is the kind of discrepancy this wiki exists to document.^[5]

That observation rests on two reports and is not generalisable. It is stated because omitting it would be a selection decision, not because two reports establish a pattern.

The extract-derived listings sit in a different analytical world from synthetic peptides: a standardised extract is characterised by marker-compound assay rather than by area percent of a single species, and a purity figure on such a material means something different.^[2]

Submitted reports on MKM material to July 2026 cover the incretin range and a small number of repair peptides. Reported area percent figures have been high in most cases, with two reports in the set falling below the accompanying certificate by more than a percentage point.^[5]

A discrepancy of that size between an independent report and a certificate has several innocent explanations — different columns, different integration parameters, different reference standards, sample handling between purchase and testing — and does not establish that either figure was wrong. It is recorded because inflated purity claims are a documented failure mode in this sector and a discrepancy is the only observable that would indicate one.^[5]

The PeptidePedia tally records 776 self-reported submissions to July 2026 — below the median for the supplier articles. Recurring complaints concern certificate consistency and the lot-matching discrepancies noted above; recurring positive themes are price and catalogue breadth.^[4] Self-selected; reception rather than quality.^[4]

The reception figure above is a mean of self-reported submissions to PeptidePedia. It is weak evidence and is subject to three limitations that apply to every such figure on this wiki:

• Self-selection. People who submit are not a sample of purchasers. Both satisfaction and dissatisfaction motivate reporting, in unknown proportions.
• It measures reception, not quality. Packaging, communication and delivery are more visible to a purchaser than purity, and weigh accordingly.
• It is not comparable across communities. Other communities publish different figures for the same organisations because their populations differ. A difference between two communities' figures is evidence about the communities.^[4]

PeptidePedia does not rank suppliers and does not maintain a league table. The figures exist because omitting them would be a worse distortion than publishing them with their limitations stated.^[4]

Submissions are reproduced as written, with the submitter's own wording. They are self-reported and unverified, and are quoted to show what the tally is made of rather than to support any claim about the organisation.

The IGF-1 LR3 1 mg arrived on day 2 with the cold pack intact and the seal unbroken. Straightforward, exactly as described.

First order, deliberately small, PT-141 10 mg only. Documentation, transit and a VendorInvestigate result at 97.9% all checked out, so the next one will not be small.

Ordered on a Monday from their warehouse in the Netherlands and it was here by day 3. That is the whole case for regional stock.

Stock said available, stock was available, and it shipped the same day. That sequence is not as common as it should be.

Moved here after two bad lots elsewhere. 3 orders in and the Medutest numbers have been flat every single time.

Queried the related-substances total on lot LOT-25-571; they came back with method, column and detection limit. That depth is rare.

Documentation is better than the two suppliers I used before, and the catalogue covers everything I actually order.

Vials wrapped individually, foam cut to fit, nothing loose in the box. Packing that has clearly been thought about.

Regional stock makes the difference — dispatched within the United Kingdom, day 3, cold pack still hard on arrival.

Reordered on the strength of the last one and got an identical result. Repeatability is the product.

Fourth order from them, all semaglutide 5 mg. Sent one vial from each to Janoshik and the whole set landed inside half a point of each other. That flatness is exactly what I pay for.

Pleased to find they hold stock in the Netherlands. Domestic dispatch, day 3, no customs step at all.

Their warehouse in Australia had the BPC-157 10 mg in stock and it shipped the same afternoon. Tracking never left the country.

One of the few places that will quote PT-141 10 mg at all, and the synthesis came back clean on an independent check.

Certificate claimed 98.3% on lot LOT-26-417. VendorInvestigate came back 98.6%. On an independent column that is as close to agreement as this gets.

Their warehouse in Australia carries the lines I reorder, so there is no wait on a factory run. Day 3 every time.

Quoted 4 days, arrived in 4. Tracking updated at every hop from dispatch to door.

Asked them to hold an order until I confirmed a lot number and they did, without fuss and without a restocking charge.

Lot code on the vial matched the lot code on the certificate exactly. Sounds basic; it is the single best predictor of everything else.

Support answered on a Sunday, correctly, with the batch record attached. That is well beyond what I expected.

7 orders in eighteen months, no substitutions, no reformulations, everything in stock when the site said it was. Boring is the highest compliment I have.

Costed them per mg against three other suppliers on the same TB-500 5 mg spec. Competitive on price and clearly ahead on documentation.

Identity confirmed by mass spec on the certificate, not just an area-percent figure. Both questions answered on one page.

Their raw material tested 98.7% against a reseller vial of nominally the same compound at 98.2%. Going direct is the whole argument.

They report purity by RP-HPLC with the wavelength stated and peptide content separately. Two different numbers, correctly separated.

Vial labels printed rather than handwritten, lot and date legible, cap seal intact on every unit.

The organisation is a commercial entity registered in the People's Republic of China. Nothing in the available record indicates a manufacturing authorisation, marketing authorisation or pharmacopoeial registration in any jurisdiction, and none should be inferred from a registered business scope, which is a licensing fact and not a quality assurance.^[1]

Material labelled for research use only is outside the regulatory framework that governs medicines. Its identity, purity, sterility and endotoxin content are not assured by any regulator, and a certificate of analysis issued by a supplier is a claim by that supplier rather than an independent finding.^[3][6]

Import of such material for personal use is unlawful or restricted in many jurisdictions, and seizure is a documented outcome. PeptidePedia describes the legal position and does not advise on it.^[3]

This article exists because the organisation satisfies at least three of the five criteria at Project:Vendor notability. The available documentary base is: a company registration record; the organisation's own published material, usable only for what it states about itself; and third-party test reports submitted by purchasers.^[1][2][5]

What is not available is independent coverage in a source unconnected with the organisation or its customers. That gap is characteristic of the sector rather than of this entity, and it constrains what a neutral article can say: capability, capacity, manufacturing arrangements and quality systems are not established here, and statements about them appear only as attributed claims.^[2]

Two frameworks are named in this article only to say what has not been established against them: a quality-system claim is not a fact until assessed against the applicable good-manufacturing-practice framework,^[7] and a testing laboratory's competence is a matter of accreditation to a recognised standard rather than of self-description.^[8] Neither assessment is available here for this organisation or for any other covered on this wiki.

The article's talk page carries the notability discussion in full, including the standing question of whether entities with no distinguishing features warrant separate articles at all.

• Visit MKM

• Certificate of analysis
• Third-party testing
• Area percent purity
• Peptide content
• Research use only
• Peptide supply chain
• Blind sampling

• Project:Vendor notability — the criteria under which this article exists, and what supplier articles may not contain.
• Project:Sourcing guidelines — how test reports and community tallies are cited on this wiki.