Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00041

MOTS-c is associated with oxidative stress and arterial stiffness in peritoneal dialysis patients: a pilot study.

Cross-sectional study · 32 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 is associated with oxidative stress and arterial stiffness in peritoneal dialysis patients: a pilot study.primary · International urology and nephrology · 2026-05-13 · PMID 42126770 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Stable peritoneal dialysis patients (mean age 60.7 years, 62.5% male)
Conditions
End-stage kidney disease on peritoneal dialysis, Oxidative stress, Arterial stiffness
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
32
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): Higher urinary MOTS-c was linked to lower oxidative stress but greater arterial stiffness. Higher dialysate MOTS-c was linked to a better vascular profile. The authors propose a mitochondrial-vascular axis in uremia and suggest MOTS-c as a potential biomarker.

    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 endpoint: MOTS-c was only measured as an endogenous biomarker and never administered, so the study cannot inform any effect of giving MOTS-c.
    • small or imprecise: Pilot study of only 32 peritoneal dialysis patients, with correlation analyses only.
    • confounding: Cross-sectional correlations between MOTS-c levels and markers are not adjusted for confounders in any way the abstract reports.
    • abstract only: Only the PubMed abstract is available, and it is truncated in the results section.
    • no control group: Single group with correlational analysis of endogenous levels. No intervention was given and there is no comparator.
    • inappropriate population: Peritoneal dialysis patients are unlike the populations in the claim questions, and endogenous levels are not an exposure to the compound.

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

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • author_conclusion: PMID 42126770, abstract (Conclusion) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 42126770, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 42126770, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 42126770, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 42126770, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · 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).