Evidence Hub

Proteins and Peptides Studied In Silico and In Vivo for the Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review

Medeiros I, Gomes AFT, Oliveira E Silva EG, Bezerra IWL, da Silva Maia JK, Piuvezam G, Morais AHA

Nutrients, 2024

5 citations

Abstract

Bioinformatics has expedited the screening of new efficient therapeutic agents for diseases such as diabetes mellitus (DM). The objective of this systematic review (SR) was to understand naturally occurring proteins and peptides studied in silico and subsequently reevaluated in vivo for treating DM, guided by the question: which peptides or proteins have been studied in silico for the treatment of diabetes mellitus? The RS protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database. Articles meeting the eligibility criteria were selected from the PubMed, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Web of Science, Virtual Health Library (VHL), and EMBASE databases. Five studies that investigated peptides or proteins analyzed in silico and in vivo were selected. Risk of bias assessment was conducted using the adapted Strengthening the Reporting of Empirical Simulation Studies (STRESS) tool. A diverse range of assessed proteins and/or peptides that had a natural origin were investigated in silico and corresponding in vivo reevaluation demonstrated reductions in glycemia and/or insulin, morphological enhancements in pancreatic β cells, and alterations in the gene expression of markers associated with DM. The in silico studies outlined offer crucial insights into therapeutic strategies for DM, along with promising leads for screening novel therapeutic agents in future trials.

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in animal and computer models (in silico), 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