Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00059

Evaluation of vascular peroxidase 1, humanin, MOTS-c and miR-200c expression levels in untreated preeclampsia patients.

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.

  • Evaluation of vascular peroxidase 1, humanin, MOTS-c and miR-200c expression levels in untreated preeclampsia patients.primary · Molecular biology reports · 2024-12-20 · PMID 39704971 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Pregnant women with preeclampsia presenting to the clinic before treatment was started; the comparison group is not described in the abstract
Conditions
Preeclampsia
Setting
Clinic (blood sampling before treatment initiation)
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 suggest that higher VPO1 and miR-200c with lower humanin and MOTS-c levels may contribute to raised endoglin and endothelial dysfunction in preeclampsia, and may be associated with disease pathogenesis and severity.

    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

    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available, and its results section is truncated, so sample sizes and effect estimates are missing.
    • inappropriate population: The study enrolled pregnant women with preeclampsia, not adults with obesity, insulin resistance or diabetes.
    • other: MOTS-c was measured as an endogenous biomarker by ELISA and was never administered, so no intervention effect can be inferred.
    • inappropriate endpoint: Endogenous MOTS-c was measured as a biomarker. The study did not test MOTS-c as an intervention, so it gives no efficacy or safety evidence.

    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 39704971, abstract (Conclusions, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 39704971, abstract (Methods and results, sentences 1-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 39704971, abstract (Methods and results, 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).