Study record
Effect of Humanin and MOTS-c on ameliorating reproductive damage induced by prepubertal cyclophosphamide chemotherapy in male mice
Wang J, Wen W, Liu L et al. · Reprod Toxicol · 2024
AnimalSeveralEvidence tier C
What this study reported
Reported that a humanin analogue and MOTS-c were each associated with preserved testicular spermatogenic function in male mice exposed to prepubertal cyclophosphamide, and identified differentially expressed genes including Piwil2, AGT and PTGDS.
Limitations
Single chemotherapy model in male mice with group sizes not reported; no fertility outcomes were measured and the transcriptomic findings are descriptive; MOTS-c is studied alongside a humanin analogue rather than separately characterised.
Study record
| Study model | Animal study (in vivo) |
|---|---|
| Substance studied | SeveralMore than one of these is central to the paper (common for reviews). |
| Species | mouse |
| System studied | Male mice given prepubertal cyclophosphamide chemotherapy and treated with a humanin analogue or MOTS-c |
| Population | Not reported |
| Design | Controlled animal experiment with transcriptomic sequencing |
| Sample size as reported | Not reported |
| Control group | chemotherapy-exposed mice without peptide treatment |
| Route (data field only) | Not reported |
| Endpoints measured | testicular spermatogenic function; testis histology; testicular gene expression |
| Pathways measured | Other |
| Research areas | Reproductive |
| 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
- Not reported
- 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.