Study record
Changes in MOTS-c Level in the Blood of Pregnant Women with Metabolic Disorders
Wojciechowska M, Pruszyńska-Oszmałek E, Kołodziejski PA et al. · Biology (Basel) · 2021
Human obs.Endogenous MOTS-c measuredEvidence tier B
What this study reported
Measured blood MOTS-c in pregnant women and newborns and reported higher concentrations in the obese group than in healthy controls, and lower concentrations in the hypothyroidism group than in the obese group. Maternal and umbilical cord blood MOTS-c were strongly positively correlated.
Limitations
Group sizes are not reported in the abstract, the design is cross-sectional with no follow-up, and comparisons across three heterogeneous pregnancy groups are unadjusted.
Study record
| Study model | Human observational |
|---|---|
| Substance studied | Endogenous MOTS-c measuredNaturally occurring MOTS-c was measured; nothing was given. |
| Species | human |
| System studied | Pregnant women who were healthy, obese or had thyroid disorders, with maternal and umbilical cord blood sampling |
| Population | pregnant women who were healthy, obese, or had hypothyroidism, and their newborns |
| Design | Cross-sectional cohort |
| Sample size as reported | Not reported |
| Control group | healthy pregnant control group |
| Route (data field only) | Not reported |
| Endpoints measured | maternal blood MOTS-c; umbilical cord blood MOTS-c |
| Pathways measured | Insulin & glucose handling |
| Research areas | Pregnancy · Metabolic |
| Evidence tier | B — Other human study |
| Publication types | Journal Article |
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
- Human
- Sample size
- Not reported
- Controls
- Limited
- Outcome validity
- Validated biomarker
- Support for its own conclusion
- Moderate
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.