Subject: Does SS-31 Still Make Sense If MOTS-C Improves Mitochondria?
From: Derek from Peptide Price <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2026 17:05:35 +0000
List-Id: <derekpruski.substack.com>

View this post on the web at https://derekpruski.substack.com/p/does-ss-31-still-make-sense-if-mots

This is a follow-up to my three-part breakdown of the January 9th MOTS-c study out of the University of Copenhagen. A great question came up in the comments after Part 1 — if both MOTS-c and SS-31 improve existing mitochondria rather than building new ones, what’s the point of researching both? It’s a fair question, and the answer actually makes the case for SS-31 stronger, not weaker. Want to read the full study? https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41520850/ [ https://substack.com/redirect/06992678-21c5-4b57-873c-e90bba839eb2?j=eyJ1IjoiNGl3b2U2In0.sVDxRtmZ85v8kfdamY0krRXGMy3p768BWtuZifRB-Zs ]
For research purposes only. Not for human consumption.
Quick Recap — What Did the MOTS-c Study Tell Us?
The study confirmed that MOTS-c improves mitochondrial performance without increasing the number of mitochondria. It does this by activating two signaling pathways — AMPK and PGC-1α — which turn up genes related to energy production efficiency, structural integrity, and oxidative stress management. It’s a top-down signal. The mitochondria receive an instruction to operate better, and they do.
So What Does SS-31 Do?
SS-31 (also called Elamipretide) works at a completely different layer of mitochondrial function. To understand it, you need to know about one specific structure inside your mitochondria.
Inside every mitochondrion there’s an inner membrane — think of it as the production floor where energy actually gets made. Embedded in that membrane is a series of proteins called the electron transport chain, which is the assembly line that converts fuel into ATP (usable energy). For that assembly line to work properly, it needs to stay organized and intact.
That organization depends heavily on a lipid called cardiolipin. Cardiolipin is found almost exclusively on the inner mitochondrial membrane, and its job is to hold the electron transport chain together and keep it functioning efficiently.
Here’s the problem. With age, oxidative stress, and cellular damage, cardiolipin gets damaged and disorganized. When that happens:
The electron transport chain starts to fall apart
Energy production becomes inefficient
Electrons start leaking out of the assembly line
Those leaked electrons become ROS — the cellular waste that damages proteins, DNA, and the mitochondria themselves over time
SS-31 binds directly to cardiolipin and stabilizes it. It’s a physical repair and protection mechanism at the membrane level.
The Key Difference Between the Two
This is the part that answers the original question.
Both MOTS-c and SS-31 improve existing mitochondria and reduce ROS. On the surface that looks redundant. But the way they do it couldn’t be more different:
MOTS-c works like software — it sends a signal through AMPK and PGC-1α that reprograms how mitochondria operate at the gene expression level. It’s a top-down instruction.
SS-31 works like hardware repair — it goes directly to the inner membrane, stabilizes the physical structure, and prevents the assembly line from falling apart at the source. It’s a bottom-up structural fix.
One is optimizing the system through signaling. The other is repairing and protecting the physical components the system runs on. They’re working on the same machine from completely opposite directions.
The ROS Reduction — Why Both Still Matter
Both compounds reduce ROS, which at first glance also seems redundant. But again the mechanism is different:
SS-31 reduces ROS by physically stabilizing the membrane so fewer electrons escape during energy production — it’s preventing the leak at the source
MOTS-c reduces ROS by upregulating the genes that manage the cell’s internal oxidative stress response — it’s improving the cleanup system
One is stopping the problem from happening. The other is improving the body’s ability to deal with it when it does. Addressing oxidative stress from two different angles simultaneously is more comprehensive than either approach alone.
The Simple Analogy
Think of a car engine running poorly.
SS-31 is like replacing worn gaskets and stabilizing the internal components so the engine doesn’t leak and lose pressure
MOTS-c is like reprogramming the engine’s computer to optimize fuel delivery, timing, and efficiency
Both improve performance. But one is working at the hardware level and the other at the software level. You wouldn’t say one makes the other pointless — if anything, fixing both layers together gets you further than either one alone.
The Bottom Line
The MOTS-c study actually reinforces why SS-31 is worth researching, not the opposite. MOTS-c having a well-defined signaling mechanism makes it clearer that SS-31 is filling a different role entirely — structural stabilization at the membrane level that MOTS-c doesn’t address. They’re not competing compounds. They’re targeting different layers of the same problem, which is exactly why they’re frequently discussed together in mitochondrial health research.
As always — for research purposes only, not for human consumption.
— Derek

Unsubscribe https://substack.com/redirect/2/eyJlIjoiaHR0cHM6Ly9kZXJla3BydXNraS5zdWJzdGFjay5jb20vYWN0aW9uL2Rpc2FibGVfZW1haWw_dG9rZW49ZXlKMWMyVnlYMmxrSWpveU56TTJNakl6T1Rnc0luQnZjM1JmYVdRaU9qRTVNekkyT1RFM09Dd2lhV0YwSWpveE56YzFOREE0TnpReUxDSmxlSEFpT2pFNE1EWTVORFEzTkRJc0ltbHpjeUk2SW5CMVlpMHpNelkxTXpZM0lpd2ljM1ZpSWpvaVpHbHpZV0pzWlY5bGJXRnBiQ0o5LldUdTJVc1dSRE96OUpUaFlTdlViM0ROWThRWWlyNF9rcUc4dzliQ3lmR1UiLCJwIjoxOTMyNjkxNzgsInMiOjMzNjUzNjcsImYiOnRydWUsInUiOjI3MzYyMjM5OCwiaWF0IjoxNzc1NDA4NzQyLCJleHAiOjIwOTA5ODQ3NDIsImlzcyI6InB1Yi0wIiwic3ViIjoibGluay1yZWRpcmVjdCJ9.Mut_dvw5miVIx_qHjSz_gbx1CfIXYY46agYjpZAtfE0?