Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00037

Are serum MOTS-c levels and MOTS-c m.1382A>C polymorphism related to polycystic ovary syndrome?

Case-control study · Not reported participants enrolled · not included in the assessments (other)

Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

Only the abstract was available. Essential methods may be missing, which limits what can be judged.

Reports of this study

Every publication, registration and abstract describing this one study. Participants are counted once.

  • Are serum MOTS-c levels and MOTS-c m.1382A>C polymorphism related to polycystic ovary syndrome?primary · Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2026-04-07 · PMID 41945630 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Case-control study
Population
Adolescents aged 12-18 with PCOS (irregular menstrual cycles plus clinical/biochemical hyperandrogenism, other conditions excluded) and healthy adolescent controls with regular menstruation
Conditions
Polycystic ovary syndrome
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
Not reported
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported

Intervention and comparator

What each group received. Related peptides, analogs and combinations are never treated as the compound itself.

    What the authors reported

    As stated in the sources. This is the authors’ account, not Peptide Library’s assessment.

    Adverse events

    None reported. That is not evidence of safety, and how safety was monitored isn’t described.

    The authors concluded (paraphrased): The authors concluded that the m.1382A>C polymorphism is not associated with PCOS and that serum MOTS-c is comparable between adolescents with PCOS and controls, suggesting only a minor role of MOTS-c in PCOS pathophysiology.

    Peptide Library’s assessment

    An automated assessment, made by AI separately from the authors’ conclusions and not reviewed by a person. How risk of bias is assessed.

    Limitations

    • inappropriate population: Adolescents with PCOS, not adults with obesity, insulin resistance or diabetes, and no one received MOTS-c.
    • inappropriate endpoint: Endogenous serum MOTS-c levels are a biomarker and say nothing about effects of administering the peptide.
    • confounding: Observational case-control comparison; the abstract does not report adjustment for confounders such as BMI.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available in the record, so methods and full results cannot be checked.
    • other: Cross-sectional single measurement gives no causal inference, and the polymorphism was monomorphic (all A/A), so it could not be analyzed.

    No risk-of-bias assessment has been published for this study’s results.

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • arms: PMID 41945630, abstract (Results, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • author_conclusion: PMID 41945630, abstract (Conclusion, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 41945630, abstract (Subjects and methods, sentences 1-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 41945630, abstract (Subjects and methods and Results) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • outcomes: PMID 41945630, abstract (Subjects and methods, sentence 3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 41945630, abstract (Results, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 41945630, abstract (Subjects and methods, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • results: PMID 41945630, abstract (Results, sentences 2-4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only

    • Version 1 · published November 7, 2026 · evidence through November 7, 2026 · research snapshot 2026.1.1 · methodology ev-1 · Automated assessment by AI (claude-opus-5-5 and claude-sonnet-5-5), not reviewed by a person.

    These assessments describe published research. Records marked automated were produced by AI under the published methodology and have not been reviewed by a person; they can contain errors. None of this is medical advice, not a statement about any product’s safety for human use, and not a regulatory approval. Peptide Library’s vendor and partner relationships play no part in them (editorial independence).