Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00078

Comparison of Serum Mitochondrial Open Reading Frame of the 12S rRNA-c (MOTS-c) Levels in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis and Healthy Controls.

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.

  • Comparison of Serum Mitochondrial Open Reading Frame of the 12S rRNA-c (MOTS-c) Levels in Patients With Multiple Sclerosis and Healthy Controls.primary · Cureus · 2022-07-18 · PMID 35989823 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Case-control study
Population
Patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and healthy controls
Conditions
Relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis
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 conclude that serum MOTS-c is lower in MS patients. They suggest it may be a highly discriminative biomarker between MS patients and controls and may hold promise for future therapies.

    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: No MOTS-c was administered; only endogenous serum levels were measured, so the study gives no evidence on effects of giving the compound.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available in the record; methods, numbers analyzed and funding are not reported.
    • confounding: Observational case-control comparison; differences between MS patients and controls may reflect confounding factors.
    • inappropriate endpoint: Outcomes are biomarker levels and diagnostic accuracy, not clinical effects of an intervention.
    • small or imprecise: The sample was small (43 patients, 41 controls) and it was a single-time-point comparison, so causal conclusions are not possible.

    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 35989823, abstract (Conclusions, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 35989823, abstract (Methodology, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • outcomes: PMID 35989823, abstract (Methodology, sentence 2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 35989823, abstract (Methodology, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 35989823, abstract (Methodology, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • results: PMID 35989823, abstract (Results, sentences 1-3) · 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).