Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00044

Systemic MOTS-c levels are increased in adults with obesity in association with metabolic dysregulation and remain unchanged after weight loss.

Cross-sectional 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.

  • Systemic MOTS-c levels are increased in adults with obesity in association with metabolic dysregulation and remain unchanged after weight loss.primary · Journal of clinical & translational endocrinology · 2025-12-30 · PMID 41551324 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Lean adult controls and adults with obesity scheduled for bariatric surgery; a subset of the obese group was followed 6 months after surgery. Adipose tissue came from lean kidney donors and obese subjects.
Conditions
Obesity, Insulin resistance
Setting
Bariatric surgery patients; setting otherwise not stated
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): Circulating MOTS-c is elevated in obesity and has a nonlinear relationship with BMI and insulin resistance. It may be a compensatory metabolic response and a potential biomarker. The authors call the study preliminary and exploratory, needing validation in larger cohorts.

    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. It was never administered, so the study cannot inform efficacy or safety of MOTS-c treatment.
    • small or imprecise: Small samples: 22 lean vs 32 obese participants, 10 in the post-surgery follow-up and 6 vs 14 for adipose tissue.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available in the record, and parts of the results text are truncated.
    • confounding: The lean vs obese comparison is observational, and the abstract does not describe adjustment for confounders.
    • inappropriate endpoint: MOTS-c was measured as an endogenous biomarker and not given as a treatment, so the study cannot show effects or safety of administering it.

    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 41551324, abstract (Conclusion, sentences 1-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 41551324, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 41551324, abstract (Conclusion, final sentence) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 41551324, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-3) · 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).