Skip to the record

What shape the published record is in

We count the published research on MOTS-c by study type: eight reviews, five animal records, two in vitro records and two human observational records, seventeen in all. The strongest outcome evidence is human observational. The one registered study that gives the compound is still recruiting.

Surfaces read Research pack read 2026-09-05 Records with a model type 17 Phrase mots c peptide research

The research, counted by study type

We count the research rather than summarise it. Each row shows one study type, one example record, and what that type can't tell you. The strongest outcome evidence is human observational. No human study in the set gave this compound to anyone.

[ four columns, scroll the panel sideways for the full row ]

Table 2. Published records on this compound in the research pack, counted by model type, with one representative record and what that model type cannot settle.
Model type Records at this model type One representative record What this model type cannot settle
review 8 PubMed 36761202 A review reports what other records reported. It runs no experiment of its own and adds no outcome to the set.
animal 5 PubMed 25738459 An animal model reports what happened in that species in that model. It settles nothing about a person.
in vitro 2 PubMed 29983246 Work in cells reports what happened in cells. It settles nothing about an animal or a person.
human observational 2 PubMed 31214116 Measuring what already circulates in people is not the same as giving them anything. An association settles no cause and no outcome.
records with a model type: 17
registered trial records: 9
completed administration trials reporting an outcome: 0

There's no direction column, on purpose. Read fast, a direction becomes a claim about a person, and we make none. Eight reviews, five animal records, two in vitro records and two human observational records make seventeen with a study type, plus nine registered trial records and no finished trial reporting an outcome.

The two human observational records are a cross-sectional blood study of 225 subjects (PubMed 31214116) and a physiology study in PCOS and healthy subjects measuring what was already circulating (PubMed 31066084). Neither gave the compound to anyone, and we print neither direction.

Is anyone testing it in people?

One registered study gives it to people: NCT07505745, phase 2, recruiting, titled MOTS-c for Improving Insulin Sensitivity in Adults With Prediabetes and Overweight/Obesity. A registration reports no outcome, and a recruiting study has none yet.

We don't list the other registrations. They measure this compound in people rather than giving it, and mixing the two would blur the line this page draws. The set holds nine registered trial records. One gives the compound, and it has no results yet.

What's still unsettled?

The literature notes that no effective way of using this compound in the clinic has been developed (PubMed 36761202). That's what the literature discusses, not our conclusion.

A 2026 sports medicine review says rigorous human safety data are lacking for unapproved peptides, and that potential for serious harm exists (PubMed 41966639). We report that as a lack of data, never as a warning aimed at you.

The literature also discusses reports pointing the opposite way in senescent cells (PubMed 30058454). A set of records holding a contrary report is a set that isn't settled. That's our whole reading.

A count describes the records, nothing more.

Back to the surface audit.

What does research use mean here?

We read published pages and report which ones carry a name, which leave it out, and when we opened each. We don't describe the compound, and we say nothing about what any material does to anybody.

Whatever a supplier calls research grade, we treat as research material and nothing else. Nothing here is medical advice, and nobody is told to do anything.

Questions about the supplier

These pages all belong to one supplier

What is Peptara Labs, on its own pages?

On its own pages, Peptara Labs says it supplies research-grade compounds and educational information, and isn't a medical provider. Its certificate index lists its research-grade products and their certificates. We read its pages for one name and give no verdict on the company.

Who does Peptara Labs name as its testing laboratory?

Titreon Analytical, described on the live page as a third-party lab whose quality system is aligned to ISO/IEC 17025:2017, not itself accredited. We keep that qualifier with the name, whole and never shortened.

Does Peptara Labs publish certificates of analysis?

Yes. Certificates are published on its certificate index. Whether we opened any single file is covered on the index entry for this compound. This page itself only links public research records.