Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00077

Evaluation of Serum Humanin and MOTS-c Peptide Levels in Patients with COVID-19 and Healthy Subjects.

Case-control 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 Serum Humanin and MOTS-c Peptide Levels in Patients with COVID-19 and Healthy Subjects.primary · Current protein & peptide science · 2023-01-01 · PMID 36799414 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Case-control study
Population
Adult COVID-19 patients and gender-matched healthy volunteers
Conditions
COVID-19
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): MOTS-c and humanin appear to be involved in COVID-19 pathogenesis. Elevated MOTS-c may compensate for decreased humanin levels.

    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 measured as an endogenous biomarker and was never administered, so the study gives no evidence on MOTS-c as an intervention.
    • abstract only: Only a truncated abstract is available, and the MOTS-c result values are cut off.
    • small or imprecise: Only 30 patients and 32 healthy controls were enrolled.
    • inappropriate endpoint: The outcomes are serum peptide levels (biomarkers), not clinical outcomes.
    • confounding: Patients were compared with healthy volunteers, and the abstract reports no adjustment for confounders. The antiviral drug therapy is a further influence on the pre/post comparison.

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

    Claims this study informs

    Where each value comes from

    • arms: PMID 36799414, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • author_conclusion: PMID 36799414, abstract (Conclusion, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 36799414, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 36799414, abstract (Methods and Results) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • outcomes: PMID 36799414, abstract (Methods, sentence 2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 36799414, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 36799414, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • results: PMID 36799414, abstract (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).