MOTS-c dosage has no established standard for humans. As of August 2026, no completed peer-reviewed trial has reported a therapeutic dose of administered MOTS-c in people. Published human work has mostly measured MOTS-c made within the body during exercise or across age groups. One Phase 2a study is recruiting and uses a fixed, once-daily subcutaneous regimen for 12 weeks, but its public record does not disclose the dose and has no results. Any specific milligram schedule seen online is therefore a clinic convention, not a validated human protocol.
What the human MOTS-c dosage literature shows
The human literature is small and mostly observational. The FDA's 2026 evidence review found no published study in which a non-compounded or compounded MOTS-c drug product was used in humans (FDA briefing document, 2026). The review also found no human pharmacokinetic data. That means there is no published human half-life, dose-response curve, maximum tolerated dose, or evidence-based titration ladder for native MOTS-c.
| Human source | What researchers did | What it establishes |
|---|---|---|
| Reynolds et al., Nature Communications 2021 | Ten healthy young men completed a stationary-bike session while researchers measured their own muscle and circulating MOTS-c | Exercise-responsive human biology, not an administered dose |
| von Walden et al., Journal of Applied Physiology 2021 | Thirty adults were assigned to endurance exercise, resistance exercise, or control; researchers measured endogenous MOTS-c | Another exercise-measurement study, with no peptide given |
| MOTS-MET, NCT07505745 | A recruiting Phase 2a study plans to enroll 120 adults for fixed once-daily subcutaneous treatment over 12 weeks | A study plan; the dose is undisclosed and no results are posted |
In the first study, the peptide injections and performance findings were in mice; the human arm only measured the peptide produced during exercise (Reynolds et al., 2021). The second study likewise measured naturally circulating peptide after exercise rather than administering it (von Walden et al., 2021). The recruiting MOTS-MET registry record may eventually supply direct human evidence, but a registered protocol without a disclosed dose or results cannot set current practice.
The same limit applies to MOTS-c peptide benefits: associations between the body's peptide level and exercise, age, or metabolic markers do not show what an injected dose does.
Where the published dose numbers came from
The numbers most often presented as MOTS-c protocols trace back to animal experiments. They answer questions about a laboratory model, not how a person should be treated.
| Published experiment | Dose and route used by researchers | Species and duration |
|---|---|---|
| Lee et al., Cell Metabolism 2015 | 0.5 mg/kg daily or 5 mg/kg daily, intraperitoneal | Mice; protocols ranged from 7 days to 8 weeks |
| Reynolds et al., Nature Communications 2021 | 5 or 15 mg/kg daily, intraperitoneal | Mice; 10 days or 2 weeks in performance experiments |
| Reynolds late-life experiment | 15 mg/kg three times weekly, intraperitoneal | Older mice; intermittent long-term treatment |
The original discovery paper reported metabolic findings in mice at those experimental exposures (Lee et al., 2015). Reynolds and colleagues later tested different exposures and schedules in young and old mice. Neither paper performed human dose finding.
A body-weight multiplication or an allometric conversion cannot close that gap. Species, route, absorption, clearance, formulation, and the biological outcome being measured all differ. Intraperitoneal injection in a mouse is also not interchangeable with subcutaneous administration in a person. The honest human range remains unknown.
How a prescriber makes a MOTS-c dosing decision
With no standard label or completed human dose-finding study, the first decision is whether prescribing is medically coherent at all. If it is, the dose decision is individualized rather than copied from an online cycle. A prescriber considers:
- The clinical aim. Metabolic markers, exercise performance, recovery, and longevity are different proposed uses, and none has an established human MOTS-c protocol.
- Medical history and other medications. Human interaction data are not mapped, so concurrent medication review and baseline risk carry more weight, not less.
- The exact preparation. Peptide form, concentration, route, and pharmacy instructions determine what a stated volume represents.
- Monitoring and stop conditions. The plan needs defined clinical measures and a way to respond to adverse effects or lack of a meaningful signal.
- Duration. Published research does not establish a standard cycle length, maintenance schedule, or washout period in people.
At Promise, a licensed provider reviews every request and decides whether MOTS-c is appropriate; not everyone qualifies. That prescriber sets the actual amount, frequency, duration, and follow-up for the individual prescription. The MOTS-c product page describes the prescribed route, while the clinical decision remains with the provider.
Reconstitution, concentration, and syringe units
Vial strength, prescribed mass, liquid volume, and a syringe marking are four different numbers. Confusing them is one of the clearest ways an apparent dosing question becomes a medication error.
| Term | What it describes | Why it is not the dose by itself |
|---|---|---|
| Vial strength in mg | Total peptide named on the vial | A vial may contain more than one prescribed amount |
| Concentration in mg/mL | Peptide mass per volume after preparation | It depends on the exact product and final volume |
| Volume in mL | Liquid volume corresponding to the prescription | The same volume can contain different amounts at different concentrations |
| Syringe units | Volume markings on a particular syringe | They are not milligrams or MOTS-c-specific units |
Reconstitution creates a defined concentration; it does not change the total peptide in the vial. A different final volume changes how much peptide corresponds to a given syringe mark. The FDA's 2026 briefing illustrates the problem: the nomination described 5 mg and 10 mg lyophilized vial strengths but did not provide a reconstitution volume, so the agency could not evaluate the proposed final concentration.
The controlling record is the pharmacy label for that exact prescription. A generic conversion chart lacks at least one of the variables needed to interpret the markings. Promise's overview of how peptide reconstitution works explains the vocabulary, while preparation and administration details come from the dispensing pharmacy and prescriber.
What is known about safety and regulatory status
Human dosing uncertainty is also safety uncertainty. The FDA review identified no clinical study or human exposure data for MOTS-c by any route and no clinical pharmacokinetic study. It specifically noted unresolved questions about peptide aggregation, impurities, and immune responses. An empty adverse-event database would not establish safety because reporting for many compounded preparations is incomplete.
Through Promise, MOTS-c is dispensed as a compounded medication, which is different from an FDA-approved product: the formulation offered here is not FDA-approved. Compounded medications do not undergo the same premarket review as approved drug products. A licensed provider may still prescribe a compounded formulation when they judge it appropriate; that decision is between the patient and the doctor. How compounded medications are made explains what the pharmacy process does and does not establish.
What a responsible dose discussion resolves
A sound clinical record connects the prescribed mass to the exact concentration and corresponding volume on the pharmacy label. It also names the reason for treatment, planned duration, monitoring measures, and the response to a missed dose, dosing error, or adverse effect. Those details belong to one prescription and one patient; they are not transferable between vials or people.
For MOTS-c, precision starts with acknowledging what is missing. Mouse protocols explain why the peptide drew interest. Human observational studies show that the body makes it. Neither supplies a standard human dose. Until completed clinical trials publish dose, pharmacokinetic, safety, and outcome data, the prescriber's judgment and the dispensing label are the only appropriate sources for an individual dosing plan.