PeptideMitochondria
- Primary research area
- Mitochondria · metabolism & aging
- Regulatory status
- Investigational / research only
- Evidence level
- Preclinical · early translational
- Primary mechanism
- Mitochondrial-derived peptide linked to AMPK and metabolic signaling
Reference profile available · Coverage varies by sectionAlso known as MOTSc
What has been observed?
Selected source-linked reading notes, not the complete literature or a pooled conclusion.
Animal · Reading scope not recordedCan muscle preservation occur without preventing overall weight loss?
In a C26 cancer-cachexia mouse model, MOTS-c preserved quadriceps mass relative to vehicle, without preventing overall body-weight loss.
Limits: A cancer-cachexia mouse model does not predict muscle gain in healthy people or effects during GLP-1 treatment.
Open primary source · Read interpretation separatelyExplore outcomes for this compound- Uses & research
The cited foundational study reported metabolic effects in mice and described cell-level signaling. Human observations do not equal a trial of injected MOTS-c, and no approved therapeutic use is established here. [1][2]
- Known half-life
No source-verified value in this profile yet. A treatment schedule or duration of an effect is not a drug half-life.
Half-life describes how quickly the measured drug concentration falls by half. It does not set a dosing interval.- Evidence & important limits
The available evidence does not establish a human half-life, a safe clinical formulation, or human effectiveness for weight, muscle, endurance or longevity outcomes. Mechanistic and animal findings require direct human testing. [1][2]
Safety & evidence boundaries
Source-specific information, not a personal safety clearance or monitoring plan.
The available evidence does not establish a human half-life, a safe clinical formulation, or human effectiveness for weight, muscle, endurance or longevity outcomes. Mechanistic and animal findings require direct human testing.
Explore safety questions by system
These are literature filters, not claims that this compound causes each effect. A keyword match is not a confirmed adverse reaction.
Interactions, rare harms, long-term effects and reversibility require separate evidence. Do not infer they are absent when the sources here do not address them.
Identity, names & formulations
Canonical compound: MOTS-c · motsc
Searchable names: MOTSc
Names share a parent research page. Different esters, salts, routes and brands are not assumed to have the same half-life, indication or exposure.
Combination evidence stays attached to the studied combination. It is not automatically assigned to each ingredient.
Understand the evidence types
Read the model and design first, then the population, outcome and limitations. These categories describe evidence, not a best-compound ranking.
- Randomized human trials
- Compare assigned interventions. Randomization does not by itself establish low bias or relevance to every population.
- Controlled human studies
- Use a comparison group; allocation and confounding still matter.
- Prospective human research
- Follows participants forward. It may be observational or interventional, so this is not a separate quality grade.
- Observational human research
- Describes associations. Confounding can explain differences.
- Case reports and series
- Useful for unusual events and safety signals, not reliable rates or effect sizes.
- Animal research
- Can test biology and function in a living model. Human exposure, benefit and safety remain separate questions.
- Cell and tissue research
- Tests responses in a preparation, including human-derived cells. It is not a human participant trial.
- Mechanistic and computational evidence
- Helps explain or predict a pathway; predictions need experimental and clinical testing.
- Anecdotal reports
- Self-reported experiences can generate questions. Product identity, selection bias and other interventions may be uncontrolled.
Systematic reviews synthesize studies and depend on their quality. Preprint status and abstract versus full-paper reading are separate labels. Citation popularity measures attention, not reliability. A study summary is not a formal quality appraisal.