Study record

Extension of Mitogenome Enrichment Based on Single Long-Range PCR: mtDNAs and Putative Mitochondrial-Derived Peptides of Five Rodent Hibernators

Emser SV, Schaschl H, Millesi E et al. · Front Genet · 2021

AnalyticalMT-RNR1 / K14Q variantEvidence tier D

What this study reported

Extended a single long-range PCR mitogenome enrichment assay to five hibernating rodents and used the assemblies to predict mitochondrial-derived peptide sequences. Comparison of MOTS-c, SHLP4 and SHLP6 sequences across vertebrate species identified segments of high homology, and candidate OXPHOS amino-acid polymorphisms showed no obvious pattern relating to cold adaptation.

Limitations

Methodological and sequence-prediction study only; MOTS-c peptides were inferred from mtDNA rather than measured, and few species were analysed.

Study record

Annotated fields for this study
Study modelAnalytical / methods
Substance studiedMT-RNR1 / K14Q variantStudies of the m.1382A>C (K14Q) variant or other MT-RNR1 variation.
Speciesmarmot, ground-squirrel, dormouse
System studiedMitogenomes of five hibernating rodent species enriched by single long-range PCR and sequenced
PopulationNot reported
DesignSequencing assay development and comparative genomic analysis
Sample size as reportedfive hibernating rodent species
Control groupNot reported
Route (data field only)Not reported
Endpoints measuredmitogenome assembly; predicted MOTS-c sequence; SHLP4 and SHLP6 sequences; OXPHOS polymorphisms
Pathways measuredNot reported
Research areasMethods · Mitochondrial biology
Evidence tierD — Cell, tissue or analytical
Publication typesJournal 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
Indirect
Model applicability
Non-mammalian
Sample size
Small
Controls
n/a
Outcome validity
Exploratory
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.