Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00091

Racial differences in circulating mitochondria-derived peptides may contribute to prostate cancer health disparities.

Case-control study · 198 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.

  • Racial differences in circulating mitochondria-derived peptides may contribute to prostate cancer health disparities.primary · The Prostate · 2022-07-05 · PMID 35789022 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Case-control study
Population
Men undergoing prostate biopsy: European American and African American prostate cancer cases and biopsy-negative controls
Conditions
Prostate cancer
Setting
Prostate biopsy patients; institution not stated in the record
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
198
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported
Funding
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural (publication type); details not stated
Authors’ conflicts
not stated

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.

    Monitoring: Not applicable; no compound was administered.

    The authors concluded (paraphrased): Higher mitochondria-derived peptide levels were linked with lower prostate cancer risk in European American but not African American men. African American controls had lower levels, which may reflect mitochondrial dysfunction contributing to excess risk. Larger studies are 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

    • other: Endogenous MOTS-c levels were measured; no MOTS-c was administered, so no intervention effect can be inferred.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available in the record; full methods and results were not reviewed.
    • confounding: The observational case-control design was adjusted only for age, BMI, digital rectal exam and PSA.
    • no control group: No intervention was given; this is an observational biomarker comparison with no treatment comparator.
    • small or imprecise: Only 198 men in total, about 49-50 per race and case-status group, so estimates are imprecise.
    • inappropriate endpoint: Endogenous circulating MOTS-c levels are surrogate biomarkers, not outcomes of administering the compound.

    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 35789022, abstract (Conclusions, sentences 1-4) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 35789022, abstract (Methods, sentences 1-2) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • funding: PMID 35789022, title (publication types) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • limitations: PMID 35789022, abstract (Methods, sentence 3) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • participants: PMID 35789022, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 35789022, abstract (Introduction, final sentence; Methods, 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).