Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00074

Circulating mitochondrial-derived microproteins at rest and in response to an acute bout of endurance exercise in individuals with cerebral palsy.

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.

  • Circulating mitochondrial-derived microproteins at rest and in response to an acute bout of endurance exercise in individuals with cerebral palsy.primary · Experimental physiology · 2026-06-25 · PMID 42349896 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Adults with cerebral palsy (GMFCS II-IV, at least 3 months of frame-running experience), typically developing adults and typically developing adolescents.
Conditions
Cerebral palsy
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): Despite lower muscle mass and fitness, adults with CP had circulating MDP levels (humanin, MOTS-c, SHMOOSE) and exercise responses similar to typically developing people, suggesting preserved mitochondrial-derived signalling.

    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 measured only as an endogenous biomarker and was never administered, so the study gives no information on effects of the compound.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available, and it gives no sample sizes, numeric results or statistical details.
    • confounding: The groups differ in age and exercise modality (frame running vs conventional running), and no adjustment is described in the abstract.
    • short follow up: Post-exercise blood was sampled only 1 hour after a single acute bout of exercise.
    • other: MOTS-c was measured as an endogenous biomarker, not administered, so the study gives no information on the compound's effects or safety.

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

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • arms: PMID 42349896, abstract (sentences 4, 7) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • author_conclusion: PMID 42349896, abstract (final sentence) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 42349896, abstract (sentences 3-4, 7-8) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • outcomes: PMID 42349896, abstract (sentences 6, 8) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 42349896, abstract (sentences 4-5) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • results: PMID 42349896, abstract (sentences 9-11) · 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).