Study record
The mitochondrial signaling peptide MOTS-c improves myocardial performance during exercise training in rats
Yuan J, Wang M, Pan Y et al. · Sci Rep · 2021
AnimalMOTS-c administeredEvidence tier C
What this study reported
Measured cardiac function with pressure-volume conductance catheters in exercise-trained rats and reported higher myocardial mechanical efficiency and systolic function in rats given MOTS-c, with a non-significant trend for diastolic function. The design compares exercised rats with and without MOTS-c rather than isolating MOTS-c effects at rest.
Limitations
Male rats of a single strain, no sedentary MOTS-c-only arm described, diastolic findings were only a trend, and group sizes and blinding are not reported in the abstract.
Study record
| Study model | Animal study (in vivo) |
|---|---|
| Substance studied | MOTS-c administeredSynthetic MOTS-c was given to cells, animals or people. |
| Species | rat |
| System studied | Male Sprague-Dawley rats undergoing aerobic exercise training with or without MOTS-c |
| Population | Not reported |
| Design | Controlled animal experiment |
| Sample size as reported | Not reported |
| Control group | exercised rats without MOTS-c |
| Route (data field only) | Not reported |
| Endpoints measured | myocardial mechanical efficiency; cardiac systolic function; diastolic function; body weight |
| Pathways measured | Other |
| Research areas | Cardiovascular · Exercise |
| 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.