Study record

MOTS-c promotes muscle differentiation in vitro

García-Benlloch S, Revert-Ros F, Blesa JR et al. · Peptides · 2022

CellsSeveralEvidence tier D
PubMed 35842023doi:10.1016/j.peptides.2022.170840Compare with another study

What this study reported

Reported that wild-type MOTS-c increased myotube formation in human LHCN-M2 and murine C2C12 muscle progenitor cells, while a Y8F mutant peptide did not. Reported that wild-type MOTS-c, but not the mutant, limited the interleukin-6-induced reduction in nuclear myogenin staining and blocked interleukin-6-induced STAT3 transcriptional activity, and identified a putative SH2-binding motif in the YIFY region in silico.

Limitations

Two immortalised myoblast lines only, with no primary cells or in vivo confirmation; the SH2-binding motif is predicted in silico and binding is not demonstrated structurally; differentiation endpoints are morphological and reporter-based.

Study record

Annotated fields for this study
Study modelCell study (in vitro)
Substance studiedSeveralMore than one of these is central to the paper (common for reviews).
Specieshuman, mouse
System studiedHuman LHCN-M2 and murine C2C12 muscle progenitor cells treated with wild-type MOTS-c or a Y8F mutant peptide
PopulationNot reported
DesignCell culture experiments
Sample size as reportedNot reported
Control groupUntreated cells and cells given the Y8F mutant peptide
Route (data field only)in-culture
Endpoints measuredmyotube formation; nuclear myogenin staining; STAT3 transcriptional activity
Pathways measuredInflammation · Other
Research areasSkeletal muscle
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
Direct
Model applicability
Cellular
Sample size
n/a
Controls
Appropriate
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.