A handful of ingredient names have spiked hard in search over the last year, mostly riding two trends at once: a shift toward “barrier-first” skincare (searches for “skin barrier” alone are reported up roughly 200% year on year), and a wave of biotech-derived actives moving from dermatology clinics into drugstore bottles. Spiking search interest is not the same thing as spiking evidence, though — so here is what each of these seven ingredients actually has behind it, including the one dermatologists are currently telling people to stop using.
The seven ingredients
- Ectoin — a molecule originally studied for protecting bacteria in extreme environments, now used in skincare to help protect skin cells from stress and calm redness. It works by stabilising cell membranes, which is a real, published mechanism, though most of the clinical evidence so far covers barrier support and irritation rather than dramatic visible change.
- Beta-glucan — a sugar derived from sources like oats and mushrooms, used for soothing and hydrating irritated or sensitive skin. It has a longer track record than most of this list, including in wound-care research, which is part of why it has moved into mainstream barrier-repair formulas.
- Copper peptides (GHK-Cu) — a copper-bound peptide studied for supporting skin repair and firmness. It has real research behind it going back decades, though most of the strongest evidence comes from wound-healing contexts rather than cosmetic anti-ageing claims specifically.
- Azelaic acid — not new, but search interest has risen alongside the others. It has solid clinical backing for redness, rosacea and breakouts, and is one of the gentler options for sensitive skin. See the full guide for how to use it.
- Astaxanthin — a red-orange antioxidant from algae, mostly studied as an oral supplement rather than a topical ingredient. The clinical evidence is genuinely real: controlled trials at 4–12 mg/day for 8–16 weeks have shown modest improvements in skin moisture, texture and UV-related redness. The caveat is that most of these trials were small and run on Japanese female participants, so the effect size in a broader population is less certain — and topical astaxanthin specifically has much less direct evidence than the oral form.
- Myrrh — a resin with a long history in traditional medicine, now appearing in “biotech botanical” skincare. Lab studies have found real antimicrobial and wound-healing activity in myrrh extract, which is promising. The honest caveat: most of that evidence is test-tube or animal research, not human skin trials, so what it does in an actual finished skincare product is still mostly unproven.
- Beef tallow — the one on this list to be skeptical of, not excited about. It is heavily comedogenic and occlusive, and dermatologists have been specifically warning people away from using it on the face because it can clog pores and worsen acne. A 2024 scoping review of the dermatology literature found the direct evidence for tallow's benefits to be minimal. The trend is real; the evidence for it is not.
Six of these seven have at least some real research behind the specific claims people make about them. Beef tallow does not — the evidence base is thin, and the comedogenic risk is well established, not disputed.
Why “trending” and “proven” keep getting confused
A spike in search volume means a spike in curiosity — often from one viral video or a single influential post — not a spike in clinical trials. Some ingredients on this list earned their moment honestly: ectoin, beta-glucan and copper peptides all have a real, if sometimes modest, evidence base that predates the current search spike by years. Others, like beef tallow, are trending almost entirely on anecdote and aesthetic appeal, with the actual dermatology research lagging behind or actively contradicting the trend.
The practical test worth applying to any ingredient that suddenly seems to be everywhere: is there a cited mechanism, is there human trial data (not just cell or animal studies), and is the claim being made the same claim the research actually supports? Astaxanthin's real evidence is for oral supplementation over weeks, not a single topical application — a subtle but important gap between the research and how the ingredient is often marketed.
Check what's actually in a product
If a product markets itself around one of these trending ingredients, the ingredient list will show you where it actually sits in the formula — near the top means a meaningful amount, near the bottom means closer to a marketing claim than a functional dose.
Frequently asked questions
Is beef tallow good for skincare?
The evidence does not support it, and dermatologists have specifically warned against it. Beef tallow is comedogenic and occlusive, meaning it can clog pores and worsen acne, and a 2024 review of the dermatology literature found minimal direct evidence for the benefits claimed about it online.
Does astaxanthin actually work for skin?
There is genuine clinical evidence, mainly for oral supplementation at 4–12 mg per day over 8–16 weeks, showing modest improvements in skin moisture, texture and UV-related redness. The studies are relatively small and mostly done on Japanese women, and topical (rather than oral) astaxanthin has much less direct evidence.
What is ectoin used for in skincare?
Ectoin helps stabilise skin cells under stress (heat, pollution, dryness) and is used to support the skin barrier and calm redness. The evidence base is mostly around barrier support and irritation reduction rather than dramatic cosmetic change.
Why are skincare ingredient searches spiking right now?
Two trends are driving most of it: a broad shift toward barrier-first, less-irritating skincare (reflected in a reported roughly 200% year-on-year rise in “skin barrier” searches), and biotech-derived ingredients moving from dermatology clinics into mainstream products.