Study record

MOTS-c in sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy: Mechanisms and translational potential

Zhao Z, Chen W, Zheng X et al. · Eur J Pharmacol · 2026

ReviewSeveralEvidence tier R
PubMed 42633878doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2026.179261Compare with another study

What this study reported

Reviewed MOTS-c biology in relation to sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy, distinguishing direct evidence in that setting from findings extrapolated from other cardiovascular, metabolic and inflammatory models. Concluded that direct sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy evidence for MOTS-c is limited and that several proposed mechanisms were established in other settings.

Limitations

Narrative review without systematic search; the authors note sparse disease-specific data and unresolved pharmacokinetic and biodistribution questions under septic conditions.

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 MOTS-c in sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy
PopulationNot reported
DesignNarrative review
Sample size as reportedNot reported
Control groupNot reported
Route (data field only)Not reported
Endpoints measuredMOTS-c biology and stress-responsive regulation; proposed mechanisms relevant to sepsis-induced cardiomyopathy; biomarker and pharmacological considerations
Pathways measuredAMPK signalling · Inflammation · Oxidative stress · Autophagy / mitophagy
Research areasCardiovascular · Inflammation & immunity · Mitochondrial biology
Evidence tierR — Review (context, not evidence)
Publication typesJournal 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
n/a

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.