Study record
Earlier changes in mice after D-galactose treatment were improved by mitochondria derived small peptide MOTS-c
Li Q, Lu H, Hu G et al. · Biochem Biophys Res Commun · 2019
AnimalMOTS-c administeredEvidence tier C
What this study reported
In D-galactose-treated mice, body weight, insulin sensitivity and blood glucose showed only mild differences. MOTS-c treatment was associated with less lipid accumulation in liver, visceral fat and skin, alongside changes in mitochondrial dynamics markers.
Limitations
Chemically induced aging model; group sizes and administration details not reported; mechanistic link to mitochondrial dynamics is described as putative.
Study record
| Study model | Animal study (in vivo) |
|---|---|
| Substance studied | MOTS-c administeredSynthetic MOTS-c was given to cells, animals or people. |
| Species | mouse |
| System studied | BALB/c mice given chronic D-galactose as an aging model |
| Population | Not reported |
| Design | Controlled animal experiment |
| Sample size as reported | Not reported |
| Control group | D-galactose mice not given MOTS-c (implied) |
| Route (data field only) | Not reported |
| Endpoints measured | body weight, insulin sensitivity and blood glucose; lipid deposition in liver, visceral fat and skin; mitochondrial dynamics (Drp1, mitofusins); small intestine histology, Ki67, P21 and P16 |
| Pathways measured | Lipid metabolism · Other |
| Research areas | Aging · Liver · Mitochondrial biology |
| Evidence tier | C — Animal in vivo |
| Publication types | Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't |
Appraisal
Each dimension is recorded separately and never combined into a single score. A study can be well controlled and still tell you little about people.
- Relevance to MOTS-c
- Direct
- Model applicability
- Mammalian
- Sample size
- Not reported
- Controls
- Limited
- Outcome validity
- Surrogate
- Support for its own conclusion
- Weak
Provenance
- Bibliographic fields retrieved from PubMed E-utilities efetch (title, journal, date, authors, DOI) on 2026-11-11.
- Annotated from the published abstract.
- Editorial review: approved (2026-11-11).
- Classification follows the site methodology; the record describes the study, not what MOTS-c does in people.