Evidence Hub

Systematic Review: Exploring Inter-Species Variability in Diabetes Mellitus for Translational Medicine

Luminiţa Diana Hrițcu, V. Boghian, Geta Pavel, Teodor-Daniel Hriţcu, Florin Nechifor, Alexandru Spataru, Alexandra-Andreea CHERSUNARU, Alexandru Munteanu et al.

Life, 2025

2 citations

Abstract

Interspecies variability in diabetes mellitus (DM) represents a critical challenge for translational medicine, as metabolic pathways, pancreatic architecture, and therapeutic responses differ substantially across animal models. This systematic review, conducted according to PRISMA 2020 guidelines, synthesized evidence from 86 eligible studies published between 2001 and 2025. Comparative data from rodents, dogs, cats, pigs, non-human primates, and humans were analyzed to identify species-specific patterns in insulin secretion, insulin resistance (IR), β-cell dysfunction, microbiota-metabolism interactions, and susceptibility to diabetic complications. Results indicate that spontaneous diabetes in dogs closely mirrors human type 1 diabetes (T1DM), whereas feline obesity-associated diabetes reflects key features of human type 2 diabetes (T2DM). Rodent models remain essential for mechanistic and genetic studies but show limited chronicity and lower predictive fidelity for long-term outcomes. Non-human primates exhibit the highest physiological similarity to humans, especially regarding β-cell structure and incretin response, supporting their role in advanced translational studies. Major limitations included methodological heterogeneity and inconsistent molecular reporting. Integrating spontaneous models with standardized protocols and multi-omics approaches enhances translational relevance and supports more accurate model selection in diabetes research.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free