KCNQ4, a novel potassium channel expressed in sensory outer hair cells, is mutated in dominant deafness.
The main results reproduced: recomputed values matched the published ones within tolerance.
Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.
- ✓No authors-side cause for any deviation
- ✓Reported values are derivable from the shared data
- ✓Any deviation was negligible
- ✓The central claim held under reproduction
- 🟡Could not use the authors’ exact input data
- 🟡Reported values were only indirectly comparable
- 🟡A deviation arose in the data or preprocessing
- 🟡Overall, the reproduction showed a material discrepancy
A 0–100 reproducibility-quality score from the per-question grades, shown as a z-score: standard deviations above (+) or below (−) the mean of comparable assessments.
▸Reproduction agent’s raw note
1999 positional-cloning paper (pre-genomic era): nearly all reported results are wet-lab (cloning, FISH/YAC mapping, RT-PCR, in situ hybridization, pedigree linkage, Xenopus oocyte electrophysiology) and out of scope for pipeline reproduction — not attempted. The one pipeline-derived result, Figure 1's ClustalX dendrogram + reported %-identity values, WAS reproduced on «our HPC» using Clustal Omega (ClustalX's modern successor) on the paper's own deposited KCNQ4 sequence (AF105202) plus current UniProt canonical comparator sequences (exact 1998 comparator accessions are not stated in the paper). Qualitative topology (KCNQ1-4 monophyletic, more divergent internally than Kv1.1-1.4) reproduces cleanly; %-identity values reproduce within 2-6 points with identical rank order. The paper's only dataset (its own GenBank deposit, 15 accessions) is fully complete and matches its own description. No GEO/SRA/other public omics dataset is used by this paper. Status is 'partial': the sole in-scope pipeline claim reproduces at within-tolerance/exact grades, but the paper's overwhelming majority of results are out-of-scope wet-lab work that was correctly not attempted.
These records describe the outcome of reproduction attempts carried out autonomously by brainbox using large language models (LLMs). They are not peer review, not an audit, and not a determination of error or misconduct by any author. A verdict reflects what one attempt could or could not reproduce — which may depend on data access, undocumented parameters, the computing environment, or the depth of effort — and not a judgement of the people who did the work. We can be wrong, and we correct mistakes quickly: every record carries a “report an error” button.
✎ I am an author of this paper
Updated or fixed a deposit, or is there an erratum? Ask us to re-run the metrics. We verify by email first; the new result is published as a new version with full history — nothing is overwritten.
Provenance — full disclosure
When this reproduction was carried out, which methodology version was used, and by whom — so the record can be audited and checked independently.
- Reproduced
- 2026-07-28
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-07-31no human curator yet
- Last updated
- 2026-07-31
Provisional, curator- or AI-assessed, and independently checkable. A reproduction outcome states what one attempt could reproduce — not a judgement of the authors.
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Assessments & scoring basis
Each contributor’s verdict, the per-question basis, and the auditable, itemised worksheet behind it.
An automated assessment. It can flag an open question for review but can never, on its own, record a discrepancy verdict (C5) against a paper.
Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.
Only one claim of this 1999 positional-cloning paper is pipeline-reproducible — Fig. 1's ClustalX dendrogram and the KCNQ4-vs-KCNQ1/2/3 identities of 38%/44%/37% — and it reproduces well: pairwise-global gives 35.9%/42.7%/36.3% with the rank order KCNQ2 > KCNQ1 > KCNQ3 preserved, and the guide tree recovers a monophyletic KCNQ1-4 clade with within-family branch lengths (0.25-0.34) exceeding within-Kv1.x lengths (0.11-0.19), which is precisely the paper's qualitative assertion. The 2-6 point numeric gap sits on our/technical side (Clustal Omega substituted for the obsolete ClustalX; present-day UniProt canonicals substituted for unstated 1998 comparator accessions), not on the authors' — the paper simply never specified those inputs. The paper's own dataset is clean: all 15 stated accessions AF105202-AF105216 resolve live as Homo sapiens KCNQ4 records (1 mRNA + 14 exons), matching the described 14-exon structure; no fabrication or too-perfect signal. Overall yellow: the verified part is solid and the deviations are fully explainable, but the reproduction touches only Fig. 1 while Figs. 2-6 (mapping, in situ, G285S pedigree, oocyte electrophysiology) are wet-lab and untested.
Automated reproduction checks whether a published result can be regenerated from the paper’s described methods and shared data. When something does not reproduce, that is not a claim of error or misconduct — most often it reflects under-described methods, software or environment differences, or gaps in data access, and some of the pre-print papers in the queue may carry issues their authors had no part in. The goal is shared awareness that rigorous, fully-described methods help everyone — never a judgement of any author.
Are you an author? We would genuinely like to hear from you — to clarify the record, add data or code, re-run the pipeline after an accession update, and publish your response right next to the assessment. Everything here is open and auditable.
🚩 Report an error in this record
Spotted something wrong — a verdict you’d contest, a data or value error, or a private detail that slipped through? Tell us, with a short justification. Authors and readers are equally welcome to write in; we review every report.
Prefer email, or the form below not working? Contact us at support@doesitreproduce.com.