MOTS-C vs SS-31
Two mitochondrial peptides that intervene at completely different levels.
The short answer: MOTS-c is a signalling peptide; SS-31 is a structural one that binds the membrane.
Side by side
| Property | MOTS-C | SS-31 |
|---|---|---|
| Research category | Cellular Research | Cellular Research |
| Presentation | 10mg vial | 50mg vial |
| Dosage options | 10mg | 50mg |
| Approved medicine using it | None — investigational | None — investigational |
| Availability | In stock | In stock |
| Batch COA | Supplied with order | Supplied with order |
| From | €39.90 | €98.90 |
How they differ
MOTS-c is encoded by mitochondrial DNA rather than nuclear DNA, which makes it one of a small class of mitochondrial-derived peptides. It is studied as a signalling molecule, associated with AMPK activation and metabolic regulation.
SS-31 works structurally instead. It binds cardiolipin, a phospholipid specific to the inner mitochondrial membrane, and is studied for its effect on membrane integrity and electron transport efficiency.
One modulates a signal, the other stabilises a structure. They are not substitutes for one another in any research design.
At the bench
Both are lyophilised peptides with conventional reconstitution. The meaningful difference at the bench is that they are not substitutes: a protocol designed around a signalling peptide does not transfer to a structural one.
What this comparison does not settle
Both are studied in mitochondrial contexts, which makes them sound closer than they are. Sharing an organelle is not sharing a mechanism.
Common questions
What is the difference between MOTS-C and SS-31?
MOTS-c is a signalling peptide; SS-31 is a structural one that binds the membrane. Two mitochondrial peptides that intervene at completely different levels.
Is MOTS-C or SS-31 better?
Neither, and the question does not have a general answer. They are compared here on mechanism rather than merit. Both are studied in mitochondrial contexts, which makes them sound closer than they are. Sharing an organelle is not sharing a mechanism.
Which of the two has more published data?
Neither has an approved formulation — both are investigational, and the published work on each is correspondingly narrower.
For research use only. Not for human consumption, diagnostic, therapeutic or veterinary use. Brand names are trademarks of their respective owners and are referenced only to identify the active compound — no affiliation or equivalence is claimed.