Human study PLS-00082

Plasma MOTS-c levels are associated with insulin sensitivity in lean but not in obese individuals.

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.

Plasma MOTS-c levels are associated with insulin sensitivity in lean but not in obese individuals.primary · Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research · 2018-03-27 · PMID 29593067 · DOI

Design and participants

Design: Cross-sectional study
Population: Lean and obese individuals (n=10 per group); the obese group had impaired insulin sensitivity by Matsuda and HOMA indexes
Conditions: Obesity, Insulin resistance
Planned enrollment (registry): Not reported
Enrolled: Not reported
Randomized: Not reported
Completed follow-up: Not reported
Funding: The publication type indicates non-U.S. government research support; the funder is not named in the record.

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): Plasma MOTS-c is unaltered in obesity but is positively associated with insulin resistance, mainly in lean individuals. This suggests its level depends on metabolic status, a dependence that appears altered in obesity. Further study is needed.

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 population: The study measured endogenous plasma MOTS-c levels and gave no MOTS-c, so it cannot inform effects of administering the compound.
small or imprecise: Only 10 participants per group were studied, which limits the precision of the correlations and the group comparison.
confounding: Cross-sectional correlations between MOTS-c and HOMA or Matsuda indexes may be confounded and cannot establish causality.
abstract only: Only the abstract is available, so methods, participant characteristics and funding details cannot be assessed.
no control group: Observational comparison of endogenous levels in lean and obese groups; no MOTS-c was administered and no intervention was compared with a control.

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

Claims this study informs

Improves metabolic health: not eligible (not primary study) for “Insulin sensitivity, glucose control or body weight”
Is safe for human administration: not eligible (not primary study) for “Adverse events, serious adverse events and discontinuations”

Where each value comes from

author_conclusion: PMID 29593067, abstract (sentences 8-11) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
design: PMID 29593067, abstract (sentence 4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
funding: PMID 29593067, title (publication types) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
participants: PMID 29593067, abstract (sentence 4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
population: PMID 29593067, abstract (sentences 4-5) · 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).