MOTS-c is a peptide the body already makes, encoded inside mitochondrial DNA. That is the reason for the interest and also the reason the dosing literature is empty: nearly all of the human research measures how much MOTS-c a person has, not what happens when you give them more. There is no approved label anywhere, and no completed trial of administered MOTS-c has reported a result. This page reports what the available sources state and what we found when we opened the one registered study that gives it to people. It does not recommend anything. Our guide to reading a dosing claim sets out what separates a label figure from a convention. How brands appear on this site is set out on our disclosure page.
What exists, and what does not
MOTS-c — mitochondrial open reading frame of the 12S rRNA type-c — is a 16-amino-acid peptide. PubMed held 254 records for it on 2026-09-08, 143 of them tagged for humans, and the human literature is overwhelmingly observational: it measures circulating MOTS-c against exercise, age, insulin resistance and disease. That is a different question from what a dose does.
There is no FDA-approved product, so there is no labelled dose, no titration schedule and no maximum. There is also no completed interventional trial to borrow one from.
The registration that everyone points to
Searching ClinicalTrials.gov for MOTS-c returns five interventional studies. Four measure it as an outcome inside a study of something else — an anaesthesia comparison, a trial of GLP-1 and SGLT2 drugs, diabetes cohorts. One administers it: NCT07505745, described as a Phase 2a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of MOTS-c in adults with prediabetes and overweight, 120 planned participants, subcutaneous, "fixed dose once daily for 12 weeks". The record does not say what the fixed dose is.
We opened the sponsor's other filings before citing it, and the pattern is worth publishing.
Hudson Biotech has eight registrations on ClinicalTrials.gov. Queried through the registry's v2 API on 2026-09-08:
| NCT | Compound | Phase | Planned n | Start date | Facility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NCT07505745 | MOTS-c | 2 | 120 | 2026-02-02 | Peking University Shenzhen Hospital |
| NCT07437547 | BPC-157 | 2 | 120 | 2026-02-02 | Peking University Shenzhen Hospital |
| NCT07437560 | Melanotan II | 2 | 60 | 2026-02-02 | Peking University Shenzhen Hospital |
| NCT07481734 | Tesamorelin | 2 | 120 | 2026-02-02 | Peking University Shenzhen Hospital |
| NCT07437586 | GHK-Cu (topical) | 2 | 60 | 2026-02-02 | Peking University Shenzhen Hospital |
| NCT07487363 | TB-500 | 1/2 | 80 | 2026-02-05 | Peking University Shenzhen Hospital |
| NCT07481747 | Tirzepatide | 3 | 2,539 | 2026-02-02 | Peking University Shenzhen Hospital |
| NCT07467447 | Retatrutide (LY3437943) | 2 | 300 | 2026-02-15 | Peking University Shenzhen Hospital |
Eight studies, 3,459 planned participants, one facility, start dates inside a two-week window, and a compound list that reads like a research-peptide price list with two Eli Lilly drugs appended. None has posted results.
The two Lilly compounds are where it becomes checkable in a single search. Hudson Biotech's tirzepatide record is filed under the protocol identifier I8F-MC-GPHK(b), and its retatrutide record under J1I-MC-GZBF. Those are Lilly's own internal study codes. Searching the registry for I8F-MC-GPHK returns two studies: Lilly's completed NCT04184622 and Hudson Biotech's NCT07481747. Searching for J1I-MC-GZBF returns Lilly's completed NCT04881760 and Hudson Biotech's NCT07467447. Both Hudson records also carry isFdaRegulatedDrug: false in the registry data, on studies of two FDA-approved and FDA-regulated drugs.
Whatever the explanation, the MOTS-c record sits inside that set and should not be cited as evidence that a Phase 2 programme is under way. A registry entry records that a filing was made. The checks a reader can run without any special access are the ones above: does the sponsor's portfolio make sense, is the protocol code already attached to another company's study, have results ever been posted, does the facility list match the enrollment.
The dose figures that circulate
With no label and no trial figure, everything in circulation is convention.
| Source | What it states | Kind of source | Date opened |
|---|---|---|---|
| Peptide Dosing Protocols, MOTS-c guide | "5 mg subcutaneously, 2 to 3 times per week, for 4 to 8 weeks"; tiers of 5 mg twice weekly (4 weeks), 5 mg three times weekly (4–6 weeks), 10 mg two to three times weekly (6–8 weeks); cycles of 4–8 weeks with 4–8 weeks off | Protocol site, last reviewed August 2026 | Opened 2026-09-08 |
| The same page, on its own figures | "There is no FDA-approved label for MOTS-c, so this is not a clinical dose"; the tiers "summarize community and clinic-reported research planning" and "None of them have been validated in a published human randomized trial" | Protocol site | Opened 2026-09-08 |
| NCT07505745 | "Fixed dose once daily for 12 weeks", subcutaneous; no amount stated | Trial registration (see above) | Opened 2026-09-08 |
Two things follow. The convention is milligram-scale and frequent, which is unusual among research peptides and makes vial economics the practical constraint. And the one place a real number might have come from does not contain one.
The arithmetic, as the guides describe it
A 10 mg vial reconstituted with 2 mL of bacteriostatic water is 5 mg/mL, which is 50 mcg per unit on a U-100 syringe. At that concentration a stated 5 mg quantity is 1 mL — the entire barrel, 100 units. The same 10 mg vial with 1 mL gives 10 mg/mL and a 5 mg quantity becomes 50 units. Because the circulating figures are in milligrams rather than the micrograms typical of growth-hormone secretagogues, the volumes are large and a 10 mg vial covers only two stated quantities. Our reconstitution page has the procedure as an FDA label describes it and the arithmetic for any vial and diluent combination.
Status
MOTS-c is not named on the 2026 WADA Prohibited List. That is not a clearance. Section S0 covers any pharmacological substance not currently approved by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use, and MOTS-c holds no such approval in any jurisdiction. The peptide-hormone and metabolic-modulator classes are also written to capture substances of similar structure or similar biological effect rather than a closed list of names.
For anyone buying it, the practical consequence of an empty evidence base is that there is nothing to check a product against except its own paperwork. Our pages on reading a certificate of analysis and the FDA warning-letter record cover what that paperwork does and does not establish.
What is not known
Whether administered MOTS-c does anything in a human; what dose would be needed if it did; what its safety profile is at any dose; and whether the one registered study that would begin to answer that is under way. Nothing on this page is a recommendation.
Sources and dates
Opened 2026-09-08: PubMed record counts through the NCBI E-utilities (254 total, 143 human-tagged); the ClinicalTrials.gov v2 API for MOTS-c interventional studies, for the full Hudson Biotech sponsor list, and for the protocol identifiers I8F-MC-GPHK and J1I-MC-GZBF; the study records NCT07505745, NCT07481747, NCT07467447, NCT04184622 and NCT04881760; the Peptide Dosing Protocols MOTS-c guide (last reviewed August 2026); the 2026 WADA Prohibited List. Corrections go to the contact page.