Polynucleotides are the "salmon DNA" of clinic menus: an injectable skin booster sold for under-eye texture, fine lines and skin quality. They are close relatives of PDRN, and the two names are often used for the same thing. This page covers the longer-chain injectables: what separates them from PDRN, what the trials measured, and why the published record needs reading with care. It reports the literature and does not recommend any treatment.
Polynucleotides vs PDRN: a question of length
Both are purified DNA fragments, usually extracted from salmon or trout sperm. A 2025 review in Pharmaceutics draws the line by size: polynucleotides (PN) are "composed of longer DNA fragments" and are associated with remodelling the tissue scaffold around cells, while PDRN is "composed of relatively shorter oligonucleotide sequences" (Kim, PMID 40871045).
The boundary is not policed. A second 2025 review says the interchangeable use of "PDRN" and "PN" in the literature "to describe polymers of varying lengths" has "led to considerable confusion", and notes that the usual 50–1,500 kDa range has been stretched in recent studies to fragments from 1 kDa to 10,000 kDa (Marques et al., Biomolecules, PMID 39858543). A product name therefore does not tell a reader how long the chains in the syringe are.
How fast the literature has grown
PubMed records with polynucleotide in the title and a skin, facial, aesthetic, wrinkle or rejuvenation term: 1 published in 2015, 5 in 2020, 10 in 2022, 15 in 2024 and 22 in 2025 (searched 24 September 2026). The treatment's popularity has run ahead of that count.
What the systematic review found
The most complete summary is a 2025 systematic review in the Journal of Cosmetic Dermatology (Lampridou et al., PMID 39645667). It searched three databases for 2010 to 2024 and found:
- nine studies, of low and moderate quality;
- 219 patients treated with polynucleotides in total;
- wide variation in injection areas and techniques;
- mostly mild, short-lived side effects, and "moderate to high" satisfaction.
Its conclusion is that polynucleotides "offer promising potential" but that "rigorous, high-quality studies are essential to validate the effectiveness and safety". The review's own conflict-of-interest statement lists one author as the owner of an aesthetics clinic, another as a research steering-board member and trainer for Mastelli, the Italian maker of PN-HPT, and a third as a clinical trainer for a UK distributor of those "polynucleotides (PN-HPT) medical devices". It states that neither company was involved and no grants were received.
The comparison trials
| Study | Design | What happened |
|---|---|---|
| Lee 2022 (PMID 32248707) | 27 people; PN filler one side of the eyes, hyaluronic-acid (HA) filler the other; double-blind | Visual and global-improvement scores not significantly different between PN and HA; roughness and pore measures improved more on the PN side |
| Araco 2023 (PMID 35531796) | 20 women; PN-HPT in one nasolabial fold, saline in the other, then HA in both | Wrinkles and texture improved on the PN side compared with baseline; no side effects reported |
| Pak 2014 (PMID 25473210) — retracted | 72 people; Rejuran one side of the crow's feet, HA filler the other | Primary and secondary efficacy outcomes showed no statistical significance between the two |
The pattern across the head-to-head trials is equivalence with hyaluronic acid on the main scores, with differences on secondary skin-quality measures. None of the ones we read followed patients beyond six months.
Four retracted papers
On 24 September 2026, PubMed's retracted-publication filter returned 5 records mentioning polynucleotides, polydeoxyribonucleotide or PDRN. One is a rat study of testicular tissue. The other four all concern aesthetic skin use:
- The Rejuran phase III trial (2014, retracted 2016). The journal's notice says the paper declared no financial involvement, but the trial had been paid for by the company making the filler and one co-author worked in its research centre. The Korean Academy of Medical Sciences' publication board called it an "impaired publication of conflict of interest" (PMID 26839493).
- A PN-HPT mid-face study (2022, retracted 2023). After a third party questioned the before-and-after images, the journal found duplication between the baseline and post-treatment images in one figure that the authors could not explain, and concluded the results "are no longer considered reliable" (retraction PMID 37495544).
- A polycaprolactone-versus-polynucleotide filler trial (2025, retracted 2026). Withdrawn at the authors' request because the comparator filler had been misidentified (PMID 41834780). This one concerns the other product, not the polynucleotide.
- A review defining "skin boosters" (2024, retracted 2025). Retracted for an insufficient peer-review process and images reused without credit; the corresponding author disagreed with the decision (PMID 41271445).
Retraction notices say a paper cannot be relied on. They do not say a treatment is harmful or ineffective, and none of these four does. What they change is how much weight the remaining literature can bear: the most-cited phase III trial of the best-known product is among them. Before-and-after photographs, the currency of this category online, were the reason for one of the four.
Regulation
On 24 September 2026, FDA's 510(k) and premarket-approval databases held no record for polynucleotide, polydeoxyribonucleotide, salmon DNA or Rejuran (the same search returns 129 approval records for the hyaluronic-acid filler Juvederm). The trials above were run in South Korea and Europe, where the products they tested are sold. Where a clinic offers one, the regulatory status of that specific product in that country is a fair question to put to the practitioner.
Side effects as reported
The review and trials above report injection-site swelling, redness, bruising and pain, generally mild and short-lived, and no serious adverse events in their small samples. Studies of a few dozen people for a few months cannot detect uncommon or delayed problems, and none we read followed patients for more than a year. Fish-derived material raises an obvious question for people with fish allergy; the trials we read did not report testing it.
Where this sits on the site
For the shorter-chain relative and its wound-healing origins, see PDRN. For topical products that put PDRN in a serum, our Medicube PDRN Pink Peptide Serum analysis reads one ingredient list line by line. And for the peptide ingredients the skin-booster category is often compared with, what peptides do for skin sets out their topical record. A decision about any injection belongs with a dermatologist or a qualified injector who can name the product and its approvals.