Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35681326›Full record

ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Prediction of ACE-I Inhibitory Peptides Derived from Chickpea (

Jesús Gilberto Arámburo-Gálvez, Aldo Alejandro Arvizu-Flores, Feliznando Isidro Cárdenas-Torres, Francisco Cabrera-Chávez, Giovanni I Ramírez-Torres, Lilian Karem Flores-Mendoza, Pedro Erick Gastelum-Acosta, Oscar Gerardo Figueroa-Salcido, Noé Ontiveros

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.6field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 57 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Food chemistry: X · 2025
    Article
  7. Insight into Protein Engineering: FromCurrent pharmaceutical design · 2025
    Review
  8. In Silico Hydrolysis of Lupin (International journal of molecular sciences · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Alcalase-Based Chickpea (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jesús Gilberto Arámburo-GálvezPostgraduate in Health Sciences, Division of Biological and Health Sciences, University of Sonora, Hermosillo 83000, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-6977-5651
Aldo Alejandro Arvizu-FloresPostgraduate in Health Sciences, Division of Biological and Health Sciences, University of Sonora, Hermosillo 83000, Mexico.
Feliznando Isidro Cárdenas-TorresNutrition Sciences Postgraduate Program, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences, University of Sinaloa, Culiacan 80019, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-4434-0459
Francisco Cabrera-ChávezNutrition Sciences Postgraduate Program, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences, University of Sinaloa, Culiacan 80019, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0003-4985-9169
Giovanni I Ramírez-TorresNutrition Sciences Postgraduate Program, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences, University of Sinaloa, Culiacan 80019, Mexico.
Lilian Karem Flores-MendozaClinical and Research Laboratory (LACIUS, URS), Department of Chemical, Biological, and Agricultural Sciences (DC-QB), Division of Sciences and Engineering, University of Sonora, Navojoa 85880, Mexico.
Pedro Erick Gastelum-AcostaFaculty of Physical Education and Sports, University of Sinaloa, Culiacan 80013, Mexico.
Oscar Gerardo Figueroa-SalcidoNutrition Sciences Postgraduate Program, Faculty of Nutrition Sciences, University of Sinaloa, Culiacan 80019, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0003-4276-8715
Noé OntiverosClinical and Research Laboratory (LACIUS, URS), Department of Chemical, Biological, and Agricultural Sciences (DC-QB), Division of Sciences and Engineering, University of Sonora, Navojoa 85880, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0001-8678-0447
Universidad de Sonora · MXUniversidad Autónoma de Sinaloa · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) peptides have shown in vitro potential to inhibit the angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE-I). However, the potential molecular interactions between chickpea peptides (CP) and ACE-I as well as their ADMET (absorption/distribution/metabolism/excretion/toxicity) characteristics remain unknown. Thus, our aim was to study the in silico interactions of CP with ACE-I and the CP ADMET characteristics. Legumin and provicilin sequences were submitted to in silico analysis to search for ACE-I inhibitory peptides. Simulated enzymatic hydrolysis was performed using the BIOPEP-UWM database, and the ACE-I inhibitory peptides generated (EC50 ≤ 200 μM) were selected to perform molecular docking and ADMET analysis. After hydrolysis, 59 out of 381 peptides with ACE-I inhibitory potential were released. Based on A and B parameters, the legumin peptides showed better ACE-I inhibitory potential than the provicilin ones. CP mainly interact with residues from pocket S1 (Ala354/Glu384) and S2 (His353/His513) through hydrogen bonds (distances < 3.0 Å) and hydrophobic interactions (binding energy from −5.7 to −9.2 kcal/mol). Through ADMET analysis, CP showed optimal values for inhibiting ACE-I in vivo. ACE-I inhibitory peptides from legumin and provicilin can bind strongly and tightly to the active site of ACE-I. Further studies to evaluate in vivo the antihypertensive effects of CP are warranted.

Indexed as

ACE-Iantihypertensive peptidesbioactive peptidesBIOPEPchickpeahypertensionin silicomolecular docking

Identifiers

PMID35681326
PMCPMC9180818
OpenAlexW4281620501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.