Peptide Library

Human study PLS-00096

SARS-CoV-2 and Mitochondrial Proteins in Neural-Derived Exosomes of COVID-19.

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.

  • SARS-CoV-2 and Mitochondrial Proteins in Neural-Derived Exosomes of COVID-19.primary · Annals of neurology · 2022-03-30 · PMID 35285072 · DOI

Design and participants

Design
Cross-sectional study
Population
Adults with resolved acute COVID-19 without PASC, PASC without neuropsychiatric manifestations, PASC with neuropsychiatric manifestations, and healthy controls
Conditions
COVID-19, Post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 (long COVID)
Planned enrollment (registry)
Not reported
Enrolled
Not reported
Randomized
Not reported
Completed follow-up
Not reported
Funding
NIH intramural and extramural research support and non-US government support (per publication types)

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): Abnormal levels of SARS-CoV-2 N and S1 proteins and mitochondrial proteins (including reduced MOTS-c) in neural- and astrocyte-derived vesicles correlate with neuropsychiatric long-COVID and may serve as biomarkers for prognosis and therapeutic trials.

    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 only as an endogenous biomarker and was never administered, so the study cannot inform effects or safety of giving MOTS-c.
    • abstract only: Only the abstract is available in the record; sample sizes, numeric results and methods details are not reported.
    • inappropriate endpoint: Endogenous MOTS-c levels in exosomes are a biomarker measurement, not a response to administered MOTS-c, so the study gives no efficacy or safety data on 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 35285072, abstract (Interpretation, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • design: PMID 35285072, abstract (Methods, sentence 1) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • funding: PMID 35285072, title (publication types metadata) · extracted by AI (automated, not verified by a person) · abstract only
    • population: PMID 35285072, abstract (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).