Discovery science versus the dosing record, claim by claim

Every row cites its source. Where a cell reflects our own reading of the evidence rather than an external source, the row says so.

Each row takes a claim commonly made for MOTS-c, names the best evidence that exists for it, and grades that evidence by species and design. The pattern is consistent: the science is real, and it is not a dosing record.

Discovery science versus the dosing record, claim by claim
Claimed effect	Best evidence that exists	Species and design	Grade	Source
Improves insulin sensitivity	Clamp studies and diet-induced obesity models with 0.5 to 5 mg/kg/day	Mouse, controlled laboratory experiments	Animal	source
Acts as an exercise mimetic	Treadmill performance improved at 5 mg/kg in young, middle-aged and old animals	Mouse, acute dosing	Animal	source
Extends lifespan	Median lifespan 970 versus 912 days with dosing from 23.5 months	Mouse, single survival study	Animal	source
Protects muscle	Immobilization loss held to about 5 percent versus 15 percent at 15 mg/kg/day	Mouse, randomized laboratory groups	Animal	source
Supports bone density	Reduced ovariectomy bone loss on micro-CT at 5 mg/kg/day for 12 weeks	Mouse, plus rat cell cultures	Animal and in vitro	source
Linked to human longevity	K14Q variant associations across 27,527 Japanese participants and a hypothesis article	Human, genetic association	Human association (not intervention)	source
Rises with exercise in people	Endurance exercise and heat raise circulating MOTS-c, sometimes only as a trend	Human, randomized exercise and heat trials measuring the endogenous peptide	Human RCT of exercise, not of MOTS-c	source
Proven in human trials	No published study of MOTS-c administration to humans; the completed Phase 1 program tested the CB4211 analog and posted no results	None	No evidence	source
Has a known dose and half-life	No in vivo pharmacokinetic study in any species; one in vitro blood-degradation experiment	In vitro only	No evidence	source