Mitochondria · Longevity
A mitochondrial-derived peptide with genuinely interesting biology and thin translational data.
Evidence passport
A one-screen evidence identity for this compound. These fields describe research maturity, confidence and legal status. They are not a safety guarantee, efficacy percentage or recommendation.
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.
The 0-100 values rate the strength and maturity of evidence, not how effective or safe the compound is.
Routes recorded
Most of this evidence comes from animals and cells
Higher = more and better-quality human evidence. It does not mean the effect is bigger or that the compound works for you.
Higher = more animal, tissue or cell research. Preclinical results are a starting point, not proof of a human benefit.
Higher = more mature, better-documented human safety data. It does not mean the compound is safer than one with a lower number.
Every number here rates the evidence, not the compound. They are editorial 0-100 strength ratings, not percentages, and not a rating out of five stars.
None of these ratings is medical advice, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use anything. How we grade evidence.
How far human research has progressed: Preclinical with early translational human observation
Marketed / research routes — never approved
No approved formulation exists. Material sold online is typically injectable; route-specific efficacy and safety in humans are unstudied.
Route availability is not evidence of efficacy, and evidence from one route does not transfer to another. The Registry never provides dosing or sourcing information.
Discovery
Preclinical
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Approved
Early translational research only; no established clinical development programme.
A short peptide encoded within mitochondrial DNA that appears to act as a metabolic signalling molecule between mitochondria and the nucleus.
The biology is genuinely compelling: MOTS-c looks like a real endogenous exercise-and-metabolism signal, and circulating levels associate with metabolic status in human observational work. What is missing is the bit that matters clinically — randomised human trials of administering it. Interesting is not the same as proven.
Useful next reads based on this compound — not recommendations.
SS-31 / Elamipretide evidence profile
A mitochondria-targeting peptide with a narrow accelerated approval and a much broader set of unproven anti-ageing claims.
Compare MOTS-c vs SS-31 / Elamipretide evidence
Same questions, same fields, side by side — including how much human evidence exists.
Claim review: “MOTS-c is a proven longevity therapy.”
Our verdict on this exact wording, with the reasoning behind it.
Research Desk
How to read animal, early-phase and controlled human studies without over-reading them.
Animal and cell findings are Level 1–2 evidence.
This section covers questions raised by how the compound works in the body, plus anything regulators and trial teams keep an eye on. It is not a statement that this compound causes cancer — for most compounds here, no human data exist in either direction.
Theoretical / mechanistic concern only
Regulatory decisions apply to specific jurisdictions, products, formulations and indications. An approval elsewhere is not automatically an approval in your country.
Check the regulatory note and linked primary sources for jurisdiction-specific details.
Not an approved medicine. Research compound; also prohibited in sport. FDA's Pharmacy Compounding Advisory Committee considered MOTS-c in July 2026 for possible inclusion on the 503A Bulks List. Its recommendations are non-binding: this is a compounding-policy process, not FDA drug approval, validation of efficacy claims or blanket legalisation.
Documented compound-specific animal or laboratory outcome findings, without qualifying human evidence for the assessed benefit.
Source transparency
A provenance snapshot of this profile. Counts show what kinds of sources are cited, not how much scientific weight each source deserves.
Review provenance
Registry editorial review: Colin Jackson-White, creator and editor, who is not a doctor or clinician. External specialist review is credited only when a named reviewer has completed a review of this exact profile.
Literature-discovery and AI tools may help locate or challenge candidate evidence, but they are not counted as evidence sources here. Registry judgements are tied to the underlying papers, trial records, regulator documents and official study records.
Source hierarchy: regulatory documents and trial registries first, peer-reviewed work next, sponsor material flagged as non-independent. We never use supplier or clinic marketing as evidence, and where a verified source has not yet been curated we say so rather than inventing one.
These entries record changes to our assessment of the published evidence — not changes to the compound itself.
Claim verdict
Longevity
“MOTS-c is a proven longevity therapy.”
This verdict applies to the exact claim above. It is not a verdict on the compound overall, a safety guarantee, or a recommendation to use it.
Registry verdict
Promising but unproven — great biology, missing trials.