Study record

Mitochondria-derived peptides in aging and healthspan

Miller B, Kim SJ, Kumagai H et al. · J Clin Invest · 2022

ReviewSeveralEvidence tier R
PubMed 35499074doi:10.1172/JCI158449Full text (PMC)Compare with another study

What this study reported

Reviewed microprotein discovery and the eight published mitochondria-derived peptides, including MOTS-c, and summarised reported associations with mitochondrial dysfunction in aging. Discussed how this literature is being related to age-related conditions such as type 2 diabetes, cancer and neurodegenerative disease at genomic, proteomic and drug-development levels; MOTS-c is covered as one of several peptides rather than as the sole subject.

Limitations

Narrative review with no stated search strategy or inclusion criteria; MOTS-c is covered only as one of eight peptides, and primary data are not reanalysed.

Study record

Annotated fields for this study
Study modelReview
Substance studiedSeveralMore than one of these is central to the paper (common for reviews).
SpeciesNot reported
System studiedNarrative review of mitochondria-derived peptides (humanin, MOTS-c, SHLPs 1-6)
PopulationNot reported
DesignNarrative review
Sample size as reportedNot reported
Control groupNot reported
Route (data field only)Not reported
Endpoints measuredmitochondria-derived peptide discovery; reported roles in aging; reported links to age-related disease
Pathways measuredNot reported
Research areasAging · Mitochondrial biology · Metabolic
Evidence tierR — Review (context, not evidence)
Publication typesJournal Article, Review, Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural

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
n/a
Sample size
n/a
Controls
n/a
Outcome validity
n/a
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.