Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00051

Reduced serum levels of mitochondria-derived peptide MOTS-c in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.

Cross-sectional study · 77 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.

  • Reduced serum levels of mitochondria-derived peptide MOTS-c in patients with obstructive sleep apnea.primary · Sleep and biological rhythms · 2025-02-25 · PMID 40538389 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Adults with obstructive sleep apnea (8 mild, 16 moderate, 29 severe) and 24 controls; 26 women and 51 men.
Conditions
Obstructive sleep apnea
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
77
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.

    Monitoring: Not applicable; no MOTS-c was administered.

    The authors concluded (paraphrased): Serum MOTS-c levels relate inversely to OSA severity and vary with BMI class. The authors suggest MOTS-c may have therapeutic potential for OSA.

    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: Endogenous MOTS-c was measured as a biomarker; no administration of the compound was studied.
    • confounding: Observational comparison adjusted only for BMI (and age in correlations); other confounders were not addressed in the abstract.
    • small or imprecise: Only 77 participants, with just 8 in the mild OSA group.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available; numerical results and methods details are not reported.
    • no control group: No MOTS-c was administered, so there is no intervention or comparator. The study only compares endogenous levels between OSA patients and controls.

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

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • arms: PMID 40538389, abstract (sentence 4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • author_conclusion: PMID 40538389, abstract (final sentence) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 40538389, abstract (sentences 4-5) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 40538389, abstract (sentences 4-11) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • outcomes: PMID 40538389, abstract (sentence 5) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 40538389, abstract (sentences 4, 6-7) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 40538389, abstract (sentences 6-7) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • results: PMID 40538389, abstract (sentences 8-11) · 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).