Study record
An 8-Week study on the effects of high and Moderate-Intensity interval exercises on mitochondrial MOTS-C changes and their relation to metabolic markers in male diabetic sand rats
Parseh S, Shakerian S, Reza Tabandeh M et al. · Diabetes Res Clin Pract · 2024
AnimalEndogenous MOTS-c measuredEvidence tier C
What this study reported
Measured higher MOTS-c, PGC-1α, GLUT4 and AMPK protein levels and lower insulin resistance after eight weeks of interval training in diabetic sand rats, with larger changes in the moderate-intensity than in the high-intensity groups.
Limitations
Very small groups of five animals, males only, and an unusual rodent model; group labelling in the abstract is inconsistent and MOTS-c was measured rather than manipulated.
Study record
| Study model | Animal study (in vivo) |
|---|---|
| Substance studied | Endogenous MOTS-c measuredNaturally occurring MOTS-c was measured; nothing was given. |
| Species | rat |
| System studied | Male sand rats with high-fat-diet and streptozotocin-induced diabetes undergoing high- or moderate-intensity interval training |
| Population | Not reported |
| Design | Controlled animal exercise experiment; MOTS-c measured |
| Sample size as reported | 30 male sand rats in six groups of five |
| Control group | non-exercised control and non-exercised diabetic groups |
| Route (data field only) | Not reported |
| Endpoints measured | muscle MOTS-c; PGC-1α; AMPK; GLUT4; insulin resistance |
| Pathways measured | AMPK signalling · SIRT1 / PGC-1α / biogenesis · Insulin & glucose handling |
| Research areas | Exercise · Metabolic |
| Evidence tier | C — Animal in vivo |
| 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
- Mammalian
- Sample size
- Small
- Controls
- Appropriate
- 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.