Study record
Mitokines as bioenergetic stress signals in cardiovascular disease: mitochondrial communication, endocrine adaptation, and translational implications
Kurian GA · J Bioenerg Biomembr · 2026
ReviewRelated mitochondrial peptideEvidence tier R
What this study reported
Reviewed mitokine signalling in cardiovascular stress, grouping MOTS-c and humanin with FGF21 and GDF15, and proposed a framework in which mitokine identity, pattern and timing convey information about mitochondrial stress. Noted that mechanistic uncertainty remains particularly large for the mitochondrial-derived peptides.
Limitations
Narrative review without systematic search; MOTS-c is covered as one of several mitokines and the authors state its mechanisms are not established.
Study record
| Study model | Review |
|---|---|
| Substance studied | Related mitochondrial peptideThe paper is mainly about another mitochondrial-derived peptide, such as humanin. |
| Species | Not reported |
| System studied | Narrative review of mitokines in cardiovascular disease, covering FGF21, GDF15, humanin and MOTS-c |
| Population | Not reported |
| Design | Narrative review |
| Sample size as reported | Not reported |
| Control group | Not reported |
| Route (data field only) | Not reported |
| Endpoints measured | mitokine regulation and signalling; mitochondrial unfolded protein and integrated stress responses; biomarker and therapeutic potential |
| Pathways measured | Other |
| Research areas | Cardiovascular · Mitochondrial biology · Metabolic |
| 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
- Peripheral
- 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.