Study record
MOTS-c in type 2 diabetes mellitus: From risk factors to cardiac complications and potential treatment
Fang T, Han JC, Taberner A et al. · Life Sci · 2025
What this study reported
Reviewed reported associations between MOTS-c and type 2 diabetes risk factors and complications, classifying them in tabular form, and summarised proposed roles for mitochondrial retrograde signalling in metabolic homeostasis. Compiled the exogenous MOTS-c approaches used in preclinical metabolic disease studies, with particular attention to diabetic cardiomyopathy.
Limitations
Narrative review describing itself as systematic in classification but reporting no search protocol, eligibility criteria or risk-of-bias assessment; the compiled exogenous MOTS-c evidence is preclinical and heterogeneous.
Study record
| Study model | Review |
|---|---|
| Substance studied | SeveralMore than one of these is central to the paper (common for reviews). |
| Species | Not reported |
| System studied | Review of MOTS-c in type 2 diabetes, its risk factors and cardiac complications, drawing on human and preclinical studies |
| Population | Not reported |
| Design | Narrative review with tabulated classification of studies |
| Sample size as reported | Not reported |
| Control group | Not reported |
| Route (data field only) | Not reported |
| Endpoints measured | MOTS-c and T2DM risk factors; metabolic homeostasis; diabetic cardiomyopathy; exogenous MOTS-c study approaches |
| Pathways measured | Insulin & glucose handling · AMPK signalling · Other |
| Research areas | Metabolic · Cardiovascular · Mitochondrial biology |
| Evidence tier | R — Review (context, not evidence) |
| Publication types | Journal Article, Review |
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
- 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.