Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00069

MOTS-c Serum Concentration Positively Correlates with Lower-Body Muscle Strength and Is Not Related to Maximal Oxygen Uptake-A Preliminary Study.

Cross-sectional study · Not reported participants enrolled · not included in the assessments (wrong compound)

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 Serum Concentration Positively Correlates with Lower-Body Muscle Strength and Is Not Related to Maximal Oxygen Uptake-A Preliminary Study.primary · International journal of molecular sciences · 2023-10-06 · PMID 37834399 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Physically active healthy volunteers (17 male, three female; median age 30 years) not in any regular exercise program or sports competition.
Conditions
Healthy volunteers
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): Higher endogenous serum MOTS-c was associated with greater muscle mass, force and jump power in healthy people, but not with peak VO2. More studies are needed to understand these findings.

    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 serum MOTS-c was measured; the peptide was never administered, so no intervention effect can be inferred.
    • small or imprecise: Preliminary study of a small group of volunteers (17 male, three female).
    • confounding: Cross-sectional correlations with no adjustment for confounders are described in the abstract.
    • inappropriate population: Healthy, physically active volunteers, not adults with obesity, insulin resistance or diabetes.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available in the record, so methods and full results cannot be verified.
    • no control group: Single group of healthy volunteers with no comparison group and no intervention; the design only supports correlation.

    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 37834399, abstract (sentences 6-7) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 37834399, abstract (sentences 2-3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 37834399, abstract (sentence 3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 37834399, abstract (sentence 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).