Follistatin – protein structure, isoforms, myostatin signaling, clinical studies and limitations of scientific evidence

Follistatin is a naturally produced, secretory glycoprotein that binds extracellular signaling molecules, primarily activin and myostatin. Although its amino acids are linked by peptide bonds, from a scientific point of view it is more accurately classified as a protein rather than a short research peptide. This distinction is important because its spatial structure, domains, maturation processes, glycosylation, and ligand binding capabilities cannot be adequately described using the general term „peptide”. [1] [2]

Interest in follistatin includes molecular biology, muscle regulation, research on neurological and neuromuscular diseases, gene transfer, and anti-doping regulations. These areas cover different biological materials and different research questions. The vector for gene transfer encoding the FS344 precursor is not the same material as the purified recombinant FS315 protein, the modified follistatin derivative, or the online product labeled as „FST-344”. Even if all these solutions involve the same biological pathway, the results of research on one of them do not automatically confirm the properties of the others. [3]

What is follistatin? Names, synonyms, and identity

Follistatin is encoded by the FST gene. In scientific publications, the abbreviations FS and FST are used, often supplemented by a number identifying the precursor or mature form of the protein. This number has specific meaning only when the author indicates the stage of protein processing that the description relates to.[1]

Studies of human follistatin sequences have identified precursors containing 344 or 317 amino acids, formed as a result of alternative RNA splicing. After removal of the signaling peptide, they correspond to mature forms commonly designated as FS315 and FS288. FS344 and FS315 are therefore related by the process of protein maturation, but do not represent identical, unprocessed chains.[1][4]

Follistatin should also be distinguished from follistatin-like proteins such as FSTL3, and from modified therapeutic preparations based on follistatin. Common structural domain or similar name do not confirm molecular equivalence. The fusion protein may exhibit different distribution, stability, binding capacity, and local activity compared to the natural isoform.

When searching for information about follistatin, one can encounter four different types of materials: endogenous protein, recombinant laboratory protein, modified therapeutic preparation, and a vector that directs cells to produce follistatin. Each of them requires separate proofs. The gene transfer study differs particularly from the protein exposure experiment because expression can persist after the initial intervention.

In practice, this means that the search for scientific literature should, as far as possible, include the exact isoform, construct, or formulation. FST can refer to a gene in one publication, while in another it refers to the biology of the follistatin protein. FS344 and FS315 can describe related maturation stages, but these numbers are not merely auxiliary designations. They indicate which sequence was encoded or which mature protein was studied. Confusing these stages can lead to errors in both the description of the structure and the interpretation of the experimental exposure.

Credible documentation of identity should also distinguish the biological source and the type of intervention planned. A recombinant protein produced in a specific expression system may differ in glycosylation from the endogenous form. A modified fusion protein may contain additional domains. Gene transfer, however, changes what the cells synthesize and potentially also the duration of this process. These are differences that are important experimentally, and not merely alternative product names.

How is follistatin classified? Peptide, protein, mixture, or other substance?

Follistatin is most accurately described as a secretory glycoprotein and an extracellular ligand-binding regulator. Like other proteins, it is composed of amino acids linked by peptide bonds. However, defining it solely as a peptide can obscure its size, spatial structure, domains, and posttranslational modifications.[4]

It is not a steroid, an androgen receptor modulator like YK-11, or myostatin itself. Follistatin binds to specific signaling ligands and restricts their access to receptors. Myostatin is one of the ligands whose action can be antagonized. These roles should not be reversed.

The term „miostatin inhibitor” is useful but incomplete. The biology of follistatin is not limited to miostatin, and selective action on muscle cannot be inferred solely from such a shorthand. Interactions with actin have fundamental importance both for the primary characteristics of follistatin and for understanding possible effects outside skeletal muscles. [4] [2]

The classification should therefore specify both the molecule and the type of intervention. This allows for the results of one study to be transferred to a significantly different product.

A particular note should be made regarding the difference between molecular classification and a simplified description of the function. The term „myostatin blocker” describes one important interaction, but does not constitute a complete chemical identification and does not confirm selective activity exclusively in skeletal muscles. The protein binding profile may depend on the ligand and the biological context. Therefore, follistatin should be classified as a glycoprotein ligand-binding regulator, indicating the specific isoform and method of delivery, if available evidence allows for it.

The term „peptide” is particularly ambiguous in online catalogs. Some sellers use it broadly to refer to proteins, gene-related materials, and small synthetic compounds. In scientific texts, one should not accept this convention if it hides important differences in structure or the type of intervention. Similarly, the protein encoded by a gene is not the same as the transfer vector used to produce it.

The structure and composition of follistatin – what has been established?

Basic studies showed that follistatin is rich in cysteine, a glycosylated single-chain protein. Its sequence includes structural domains and elements stabilized by disulfide bridges that participate in ligand binding. Glycosylation and maturation processes mean that one sequence name does not necessarily correspond to one experimentally observed molecular mass. [4]

Structural studies of the miostatine–follistatin complex showed how follistatin can cover the surfaces of the ligand involved in interaction with the receptor. This binding mode provides a molecular explanation of the antagonism, rather than merely a correlation between the amount of follistatin and muscle size. [2]

Mature isoforms also differ in their end region and interactions with cell surface components. These differences can influence the location and manner of interaction with ligands. However, they should not be taken as a rule that one form is always stronger, safer, or more suitable for every application.

In the case of a laboratory sample, useful identification information includes the sequence specific to the species, the precursor or mature form, the expression system, the markers used during purification, glycosylation, spatial structure, and biological activity. For a modified product, additional domains and delivery strategy should also be specified.

A single percentage of purity is not sufficient to confirm these properties. Chemical or electrophoretic purity does not independently demonstrate proper folding, ligand binding activity, the absence of all significant impurities, or suitability for clinical use. Structural identity and biological activity are related to each other, but they are separate measurement parameters.

Structural characterization also requires distinguishing between the amino acid sequence and the final biological molecule. The signal peptide can be removed, disulfide bridges stabilize the misfolded chain, and carbohydrate groups can contribute to the observed molecular heterogeneity. Therefore, information about molecular mass requires context. The mass calculated based on the sequence does not necessarily correspond to the apparent mass measured for the glycosylated protein. These differences should be documented, not treated as discrepancies requiring averaging.

The same caution applies to laboratory quality declarations. The results of chromatography or electrophoresis may support the assessment of identity and purity, but no single measurement alone confirms the correct conformation, all relevant glycosides, biological activity, and the absence of impurities. A preparation showing biological activity should be evaluated using methods appropriate for the process under investigation. The declared percentage of purity without indication of the test method provides limited information about the function.

Studies on follistatin – evidence in humans, animals and in the laboratory

The scientific literature on follistatin is extensive but not homogeneous. Sequencing, crystallographic studies of interactions, gene transfer in animals, observations of circulating biomarkers in blood, and clinical studies provide different types of evidence. They should not be combined into a single measure of efficacy or treated as successive independent repetitions of the same treatment. For each outcome, the key elements are the material studied, the population or model, the comparator group, the endpoint, and the duration of observation.

Molecular and animal studies

Sequencing and structure studies provide direct evidence regarding the identity of the protein and its interactions with ligands. They explain why follistatin has become of interest in studies of muscle-regulating pathways but do not themselves confirm clinical benefits.[1][2]

In a mouse gene transfer study, sustained muscle effects following administration of miostatin inhibitors-encoding genes were reported, including follistatin. These are important preclinical evidence, but the species, disease model, expression pattern, and exposure time limit the ability to directly transfer the results to humans. [5]

A later publication concerning the principal investigators presented the results after delivering follistatin using the AAV vector. In August 2026, a correction to this work was published. The existence of the correction was confirmed, but during the preparation of this review, access to its full content was not obtained. Therefore, the article is not based on detailed quantitative data or safety claims derived from this publication. The correction should be taken into account in any future detailed assessment of this study.[6][7]

Physiological observations in humans

The study involving 122 healthy young adults analyzed the concentration of follistatin in the blood and its physiological variability. Additional smaller studies concerned the time of day and other conditions. The relationships between follistatin concentration and body composition and the variability of circulating protein measurements do not indicate that administering follistatin improves muscle function. Biomarker studies and intervention studies address different questions. [8]

Early studies of gene transfer in humans

In the Phase 1/2a study of Becker muscular dystrophy, six participants received an intervention using the AAV1 construct encoding FS344. Four participants showed an improvement in the reported distance walked measure, while two did not. The small sample size and lack of a control group allow the results to be considered as a basis for further research, but not as a reliable estimate of the benefits in healthy individuals or evidence of long-term safety. [3]

A publication on sporadic intermittent muscle inflammation also described six participants receiving the intervention, and their walking results were compared with the results of eight untreated individuals. The protocol also included physical exercise. The study protocol and the attribution of the observed improvement to the intervention were challenged in a published scientific correspondence, to which the authors responded. These publications are part of the scientific documentation and not independent studies confirming efficacy. [9] [10] [11]

Criticism pointed to concerns regarding the comparison of groups, simultaneous interventions, and the analysis of results. These are important because changes following combination therapy cannot be automatically attributed solely to gene transfer. Therefore, the study should be considered exploratory rather than conclusive evidence of clinical efficacy.[10]

Evidence regarding a related, modified preparation

ACE-083 provides an instructive but separate example. In a randomized trial involving facial-wing-shoulder muscular dystrophy, the preparation increased the measured muscle volume, but did not lead to a consistent improvement in functional outcomes or in the results reported by patients. This does not prove that any approach involving follistatin will be ineffective. It does, however, show why greater muscle volume cannot be automatically equated with a significant improvement in their function. [12]

How to interpret the results of clinical trials in humans?

Studies on Becker muscular dystrophy and inflammatory myositis used gene transfer in individuals with recognized neuromuscular diseases. Participants, type of intervention, and clinical goals differed significantly from consumer claims regarding increasing muscle mass in healthy adults. In the Becker dystrophy study, six people received the AAV1-FS344 intervention, and four saw improvements in the reported distance walked measurement. This is a descriptive result from a very small study. It does not allow determining the magnitude of the causal effect of the treatment or the probability of a response in a broader population. [3]

A publication on intrathoracic muscular inflammation compared six participants receiving the intervention with eight untreated individuals, with the protocol including physical exercise. Such a comparison can provide information, but does not provide protection against confounding factors at the level achieved through random assignment and proper blinding. Subsequent published criticism and the authors’ response are important because they indicate which analytical decisions and project elements remain in dispute. The original report and correspondence should be analyzed together. [9] [10] [11]

The ACE-083-related study program provides a particularly useful lesson regarding endpoint selection. Increasing muscle volume is a measurable biological change, but for patients and physicians, walking, strength, endurance, independence, and adverse effects may be of greater importance. In a randomized study, no consistent, corresponding improvement in functional improvement or in patient-reported outcomes was demonstrated. This does not resolve the clinical potential of all approaches involving follistatin. However, it illustrates why indirect and actual clinical benefits must be evaluated separately. [12]

How are follistatin preparations different from gene therapy?

The protein preparation contains material that can be directly characterized at the time of testing. The gene transfer construct, on the other hand, contains a genetic instruction intended to produce the protein by the transduced cells. The second approach raises additional questions regarding the level of expression, tissue distribution, stability, effects associated with the vector, and long-term observation. None of these types of interventions can be determined solely by the name „follistatin.”.

For scientific comparisons, researchers need the actual identity of the sequence or construct, production and quality documentation, and measurement of exposure or expression appropriate for the intervention in question. Declared similarity of the amino acid sequence is not sufficient to confirm identical biological distribution or safety profile. In particular, published gene transfer results do not confirm the identity or activity of products sold outside the clinical trial conditions.

Action mechanisms studied in the context of follistatin

Follistatin acts primarily by binding extracellular ligands, rather than as a receptor agonist acting selectively on muscles. Ligand binding can limit its interaction with receptors and alter further signal transmission. Structural studies of myostatin directly support this model of ligand antagonism.[2]

However, the signaling pathway does not predict unlimited muscle growth. The biological response depends on which ligands follistatin interacts with, where the protein is located, how long the exposure persists, and the state of the tissue. Other factors that influence muscle function remain important even when signaling regulating their development changes.

Therefore, the transfer of genes, measurements of circulating blood proteins, and locally acting modified therapeutic agents should not be combined into a single exposure category. They can cause different spatial and temporal patterns of activity. The local response does not allow determining the consequences of sustained systemic expression and vice versa.

Results related to follistatin in cells treated with YK-11 require further differentiation. Increasing follistatin expression in a cell is not the same intervention as administering a characterized protein or AAV construct. It also does not confirm identical intensity, distribution, or duration of ligand antagonism in humans.[13]

The appropriate research question is therefore specific: which form or intervention changes a specific pathway in which tissue and with what measurable clinical consequences? General formulations such as „elimination of myostatin” leave too many stages of this process without verification.

The mechanistic pathway can best be understood as a series of conditional steps. First, the specific form of follistatin must be present where the target ligand is available. Then, in local biochemical conditions, binding must occur. Next, a change in receptor signaling must influence a relevant tissue process. Finally, the change in the tissue must translate into a result of clinical significance. Structural evidence strongly supports the binding step, but it does not independently confirm all subsequent steps in humans.

The ability of follistatin to interact with more than one ligand is the reason why it should not be described as a simple switch that acts solely on muscles. Hormonal and tissue signaling systems are interconnected, and modifying the extracellular regulator can have consequences that depend on the context. The result obtained with one experimental exposure pattern does not confirm the safety of another pattern, especially if the latter may involve sustained gene expression.

Limitations of the scientific evidence regarding follistatin

The main limitation is the heterogeneity of the materials and delivery methods. Endogenous proteins, recombinant isoforms, fusion proteins, and gene transfer products cannot be encompassed by a single, unambiguous scientific statement. Correct conclusions must take these differences into account.

Small, early clinical studies are useful for assessing feasibility and preliminary safety observations, but they do not allow for the identification of rare risks or a reliable determination of the magnitude of benefits. The absence of a control group and concurrent exercise or other interventions further complicate the attribution of effects. The published discussion regarding the randomized muscle inflammation study highlights the importance of evaluating methods, rather than relying solely on the positive title of the publication.

Another limitation is the substitution of one endpoint for another. Muscle size, strength, ability to walk, independence, and quality of life are separate outcomes. The ACE-083 study shows that an improvement in one of these can occur without a consistent improvement in the others.[12]

The interactions of follistatin with many ligands also do not allow us to assume that manipulating its activity affects only skeletal muscles. A physiological protein may be essential for the proper functioning of the body, while at the same time causing uncertain consequences when its quantity or distribution are experimentally altered.

In sports, the WADA list of substances and methods banned for 2026 lists follistatin as one of the prohibited myostatin-binding proteins. This concerns the use of the prohibited agent, not the natural occurrence of endogenous follistatin in the body. The doping classification is separate from clinical efficacy and the drug’s approval for sale in a specific country. [14]

The most important question is not whether follistatin exhibits biological activity. Its role in ligand binding is well documented. It remains uncertain, however, whether a specific intervention can elicit a clinically significant improvement with acceptable risk in a specific population of patients. The answer requires results that go beyond laboratory biomarkers and changes seen in imaging studies. Functional ability, symptoms, daily activities, and adverse effects may present a different picture than the measurement of muscle volume alone.

The assessment of evidence should also distinguish feasibility from proven effectiveness. An early study involving several participants may demonstrate that the procedure is feasible and provide a hypothesis regarding the clinical response. However, it cannot reliably estimate rare harms or eliminate alternative explanations for improvement. If methodological criticism has been published, it should be considered as part of the scientific discussion, rather than being ignored because of the favorable results presented in the original work.

Frequently asked questions about follistatin

1. Does follistatin mean one of the defined substances?

Follistatin refers to a specific proteinaceous complex, but the name itself does not indicate the isoform, maturation stage, or modified formulation. These differences can affect activity and exposure. Therefore, scientific claims should specify the actual molecular form and type of intervention, rather than treating all designations of follistatin as equivalent. [1] The precise description should indicate the length of the precursor, the mature form, the expression system, and any modifications. This prevents the situation where one name hides several different molecular materials.

2. What do the available studies on follistatin confirm?

They confirm the biological ability to bind ligands, a significant body of preclinical research, and small early human studies regarding specific therapeutic approaches. They do not confirm universal efficacy in muscle building or overall safety. The appropriate conclusion depends on the isoform, delivery system, population, and the outcome being analyzed. [2] [3] Mechanistic evidence is strongest in the context of ligand binding, whereas clinical conclusions depend on specific studies. This distinction is important when interpreting small studies that were not designed to assess effects in healthy individuals.

3. Is follistatin a peptide or a protein?

Protein, more specifically glycoprotein, is a more precise classification. Although follistatin contains peptide bonds, its length of chain and distorted structure distinguish it from the short peptides often discussed in product searches. Defining it as a peptide without further explanation can obscure important differences in identity and biological behavior.[4] Classifying it as a protein also highlights the importance of tertiary structure and posttranslational processing. These properties influence the way samples are identified and characterized.

4. Are FS344 and FS315 identical?

No. FS344 is a precursor containing a signal sequence, whereas FS315 is the name of the mature form after processing. The numbers describe the different stages of protein formation. The study or product description should clearly indicate this stage. [1] [4] The signal sequence is involved in the cellular production and maturation of the protein, therefore the precursor labeling cannot simply be treated as the length of the measured mature protein. The published methods should specify which form was produced or analyzed.

5. Can FS288 and FS315 be used interchangeably?

Not automatically. Differences in the final regions and interactions with surrounding molecules can influence the localization and manner of binding of ligands. Common origin from a single gene does not eliminate these differences. Comparisons should identify the isoform and examine the property relevant to the given claim.[2] Differences in the final regions can alter interactions with surrounding tissues. However, this does not imply the existence of a universal hierarchy of biological activity under all experimental conditions.

6. Is follistatin the same as myostatine?

No. Myostatin is a signaling ligand, whereas follistatin can bind to it and antagonize it. Confusing these two molecules leads to a reversal of their roles in the pathway under study. Understanding this distinction is necessary before interpreting claims regarding muscle regulation.[2] One molecule serves as a ligand, and the other is a protein capable of binding it. Reversing these roles would lead to a misleading description of the pathway and its experimental modification.

7. Does follistatin act only on myostatin?

No. Its interactions also include the activator, which was fundamental in the original protein characterization. The term „miostatin inhibitor” is therefore incomplete. The mechanism involving a single ligand does not prove the absence of all other biological effects. [4] Interactions with the activator are also relevant beyond muscle physiology. Therefore, the claim of selective action on muscles requires its own experimental confirmation, rather than relying solely on the binding ability of miostatine.

8. Was a commercial Follistatin vial tested in the Beckers’ dystrophy study?

No. A specific construct for the transfer of the AAV gene encoding FS344 was studied. This intervention differs from the administration of an unverified protein preparation. Its results cannot confirm the authenticity or properties of commercial products only because they have the name follistatin on the label. [3] The intervention using the vector introduces additional variables, including tissue transduction and the duration of expression. The commercial label does not replicate these properties by itself by simply indicating the name of the encoded protein.

9. Does the study involving six people confirm the long-term safety?

No. A small study can document observed events, but it does not allow the exclusion of rare or delayed harms. The length of observation, population, and type of exposure also limit the ability to generalize the results. Settle-down preliminary observations should remain preliminary, rather than becoming a general guarantee of safety. Rare adverse events require much larger data sets on exposure, and the effects of delayed exposure over a correspondingly long observation period. A limited early study cannot provide any of these types of certainty.

10. Did the study of inflammatory muscle disease ultimately confirm its effectiveness?

No. It provided exploratory results and became the subject of a published methodological discussion. Simultaneous interventions and nonrandomized comparisons make it difficult to attribute improvements. The report and the associated correspondence should be analyzed together, rather than treating the favorable finding as definitive. [9] [10] [11] The published criticism of the study design in itself does not prove the interventions ineffective, but it does show why attributing the observed change requires appropriate control groups. Proper interpretation remains exploratory.

11. Does a larger muscle always function better?

No. Volume and function are separate endpoints. In the related randomized study ACE-083, muscle volume was increased without a consistent improvement in functional capacity, which illustrates this difference. This result does not resolve all questions regarding follistatin, but it rules out the assumption that size alone indicates a beneficial benefit. [12] Imaging can document volume changes, while strength, mobility, fatigue, or daily functioning remain unchanged. These results require separate, previously defined assessments.

12. Does the result of the follistatin blood concentration test predict the benefits of the treatment?

Not independently. The concentration of circulating protein may change depending on physiological conditions, and the association with body composition does not confirm a causal effect of treatment. Interpretation of biomarkers and the study of interventions require different research designs. The result of the measurement should not be directly translated into a therapeutic claim. [8] The association of a biomarker with a specific trait is not a test of whether a targeted change in the biomarker improves the outcome. The time of measurement, the physiological state, and other factors can influence the protein concentration in the blood.

13. Is ACE-083 just follistatin?

No. It is a distinct, modified therapeutic approach based on follistatin. Its formulation and intended local action differ from the natural blood-borne protein and gene transfer. The results of its studies provide an important context, but they cannot be fully attributed to all materials containing follistatin. [15] The results of ACE-083 should be cited in relation to the actually studied modified product. They are useful for interpreting endpoints, but they do not constitute direct evidence regarding another recombinant protein or gene transfer construct.

14. Does the increase in follistatin expression by YK-11 in cells confirm the effect of YK-11 in humans?

No. The expression result in cells is not a clinical trial of efficacy or safety. It also does not confirm exposure comparable to gene therapy using follistatin. The mechanistic link is the starting point for further research, not evidence of interchangeability of these interventions. [13] Changes in gene expression observed in the laboratory cell system do not indicate that the same effect on the signaling pathway occurs in humans. They also do not confirm a favorable benefit-risk ratio in clinical settings.

15. Does the natural presence of follistatin guarantee the safety of manipulating its activity?

No. The physiological presence of a protein does not confirm the safety of altering its concentration, location, or duration of action. Such changes can affect many biological pathways. Safety should be evaluated for actual intervention rather than deriving it from the natural function of the protein. Natural occurrence indicates a physiological role, but does not determine the consequences of prolonged increases in protein levels or changes in its tissue distribution. The safety of interventions requires separate studies.

16. Is follistatin subject to anti-doping regulations?

Yes. The WADA list for 2026 lists follistatin as one of the proteins that bind myostatin. This is separate from the normal endogenous production of the protein and from whether a given therapy has evidence of clinical efficacy. The designation „research” or „natural” does not confirm the admissibility of its use in sports. [14] Anti-doping regulations classify prohibited interventions, not the mere presence of the protein in the body. Sports eligibility, the approval of a drug for sale, and scientific efficacy are separate issues.

17. Which studies would most strengthen the clinical conclusions regarding follistatin?

The proposals would strengthen well-controlled studies involving clearly characterized interventions, including significant functional outcomes and appropriately long safety follow-up. Transparent reporting and independent replication of results are important. The goal is to link the activity of the biological pathway to reproducible clinical benefit, rather than relying solely on muscle size or the reliability of the proposed mechanism. Such studies should present real data, allocation and blinding methods, a comparison group, definitions of endpoints, and adverse effects. Independent confirmation would help distinguish a repeatable effect from chance or errors resulting from the study design.

Applications

Follistatin is a glycoprotein that exists in different precursor and mature forms, not as a single interchangeable product containing a short peptide. Its biology and early therapeutic research are well-developed areas of science, but differences between delivery methods and methodological limitations remain crucial for interpreting the evidence. Gene transfer results cannot be used to confirm the properties of protein preparations sold online or claims regarding YK-11.

Educational and medical reservation

The article is intended for educational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice or a recommendation for the use of follistatin, its derivatives, or gene therapy. It does not contain instructions for dosage, preparation, or administration.

Results from cell, animal, and small clinical studies cannot be automatically applied to healthy individuals or unverified commercial products. Safety and efficacy depend on the specific intervention, and follistatin is on the WADA list of prohibited substances in 2026.[14]

References

1. Shimasaki, S., Koga, M., Esch, F., Cooksey, K., Mercado, M., Koba, A., Ueno, N., Ying, S. Y., Ling, N., & Guillemin, R. (1988). Primary structure of the human follistatin precursor and its genomic organization. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 85(12), 4218–4222. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.85.12.4218
2. Cash, J. N., Rejon, C. A., McPherron, A. C., Bernard, D. J., & Thompson, T. B. (2009). The structure of myostatin: follistatin 288: Insights into receptor utilization and heparin binding. The EMBO Journal, 28(17), 2662–2676. https://doi.org/10.1038/emboj.2009.205
3. Mendell, J. R., Sahenk, Z., Malik, V., Gomez, A. M., Flanigan, K. M., Lowes, L. P., Alfano, L. N., Berry, K., Meadows, E., Lewis, S., Braun, L., Shontz, K., Rouhana, M., Clark, K. R., Rosales, X. Q., Al-Zaidy, S., Govoni, A., Rodino-Klapac, L. R., Hogan, M. J., & Kaspar, B. K. (2015). A phase 1/2a follistatin gene therapy trial for Becker muscular dystrophy. Molecular Therapy, 23(1), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1038/mt.2014.200
4. Esch, F. S., Shimasaki, S., Mercado, M., Cooksey, K., Ling, N., Ying, S., Ueno, N., & Guillemin, R. (1987). Structural characterization of follistatin: A novel follicle-stimulating hormone release-inhibiting polypeptide from the gonad. Molecular Endocrinology, 1(11), 849–855. https://doi.org/10.1210/mend-1-11-849
5. Haidet, A. M., Rizo, L., Handy, C., Umapathi, P., Eagle, A., Shilling, C., Boue, D., Martin, P. T., Sahenk, Z., Mendell, J. R., & Kaspar, B. K. (2008). Long-term enhancement of skeletal muscle mass and strength by single gene administration of myostatin inhibitors. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105(11), 4318–4322. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709144105
6. Kota, J., Handy, C. R., Haidet, A. M., Montgomery, C. L., Eagle, A., Rodino-Klapac, L. R., Tucker, D., Shilling, C. J., Therlfall, W. R., Walker, C. M., Weisbrode, S. E., Janssen, P. M., Clark, K. R., Sahenk, Z., Mendell, J. R., & Kaspar, B. K. (2009). Follistatin gene delivery enhances muscle growth and strength in nonhuman primates. Science Translational Medicine, 1(6), 6ra15. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.3000112
7. Erratum for the Research Article „Follistatin gene delivery enhances muscle growth and strength in nonhuman primates”. (2026). Science Translational Medicine, 18(861), eaek4223. https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aek4223
8. Anastasilakis, A. D., Polyzos, S. A., Skouvaklidou, E. C., Kynigopoulos, G., Saridakis, Z. G., Apostolou, A., Triantafyllou, G. A., Karagiozoglou-Lampoudi, T., & Mantzoros, C. S. (2016). Circulating follistatin displays a day-night rhythm and is associated with muscle mass and circulating leptin levels in healthy, young humans. Metabolism, 65(10), 1459–1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.metabol.2016.07.002
9. Mendell, J. R., Sahenk, Z., Al-Zaidy, S., Rodino-Klapac, L. R., Lowes, L. P., Alfano, L. N., Berry, K., Miller, N., Yalvac, M., Dvorchik, I., Moore-Clingenpeel, M., Flanigan, K. M., Church, K., Shontz, K., Curry, C., Lewis, S., McColly, M., Hogan, M. J., & Kaspar, B. K. (2017). Follistatin gene therapy for sporadic inclusion body myositis improves functional outcomes. Molecular Therapy, 25(4), 870–879. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.02.015
10. Greenberg, S. A. (2017). Unfounded claims of improved functional outcomes attributed to follistatin gene therapy in inclusion body myositis. Molecular Therapy, 25(10), 2235–2237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.09.002
11. Mendell, J. R. (2017). Reply to letter to the editor. Molecular Therapy, 25(10), 2238–2240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ymthe.2017.09.003
12. Statland, J. M., Campbell, C., Desai, U., Karam, C., Díaz-Manera, J., Guptill, J. T., Korngut, L., Genge, A., Tawil, R. N., Elman, L., Joyce, N. C., Wagner, K. R., Manousakis, G., Amato, A. A., Butterfield, R. J., Shieh, P. B., Wicklund, M., Gamez, J., Bodkin, C., … Attie, K. M. (2022). Randomized phase 2 study of ACE-083, a muscle-promoting agent, in facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy. Muscle & Nerve, 66(1), 50–62. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.27558
13. Kanno, Y., Ota, R., Someya, K., Kusakabe, T., Kato, K., & Inouye, Y. (2013). Selective androgen receptor modulator, YK11, regulates myogenic differentiation of C2C12 myoblasts by follistatin expression. Biological & Pharmaceutical Bulletin, 36(9), 1460–1465. https://doi.org/10.1248/bpb.b13-00231
14. World Anti-Doping Agency. (2025). The 2026 prohibited list: International standard. Retrieved October 23, 2026, from https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/2025-09/2026list_en_final_clean_september_2025.pdf
15. Glasser, C. E., Gartner, M. R., Wilson, D., Miller, B., Sherman, M. L., & Attie, K. M. (2018). Locally acting ACE-083 increases muscle volume in healthy volunteers. Muscle & Nerve, 57(6), 921–926. https://doi.org/10.1002/mus.26113