Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00039

MOTS-C levels ın ındividuals with and without obesity and ıts association with ınflammation, insulin resistance and endothelial dysfunction.

Cross-sectional study · 85 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.

  • MOTS-C levels ın ındividuals with and without obesity and ıts association with ınflammation, insulin resistance and endothelial dysfunction.primary · Archives of endocrinology and metabolism · 2025-09-26 · PMID 41004666 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Adults with obesity (BMI ≥30) and with normal BMI (18.5–24.9), excluding smokers, pregnant women, people with type 2 diabetes and people with other chronic conditions
Conditions
Obesity, Insulin resistance
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
85
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): Serum MOTS-c levels were similar in people with obesity and people of normal weight. Age and insulin resistance were significant determinants of MOTS-c levels.

    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

    • other: MOTS-c was only measured as an endogenous biomarker and was never administered, so no effect of the intervention can be inferred.
    • confounding: The comparison between BMI groups is cross-sectional, and the abstract does not report adjustment for every relevant confounder.
    • small or imprecise: Only 85 participants were enrolled across the two groups.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract was available, and its results section is truncated mid-sentence.
    • no control group: Observational cross-sectional comparison of endogenous levels; no MOTS-c was administered and there was no intervention comparison.

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

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • arms: PMID 41004666, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • author_conclusion: PMID 41004666, abstract (Conclusion, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 41004666, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • outcomes: PMID 41004666, abstract (Methods, sentence 3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 41004666, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 41004666, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • results: PMID 41004666, abstract (Results, sentences 1-2) · 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).