Reelin and the Cdc42/Rac1 guanine nucleotide exchange factor αPIX/Arhgef6 promote dendritic Golgi translocation in hippocampal neurons.
Part of the results reproduced; minor but material deviations remained.
Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.
- ✓No relevant deviation in data/preprocessing
- ✓No authors-side cause for any deviation
- ✓Any deviation was negligible
- 🔴Could not use the authors’ exact input data
- 🔴Reported values were only indirectly comparable
- 🟡Reported values were not (fully) derivable from the shared data
- 🟡The central claim did not (fully) hold under reproduction
- 🟡Overall, the reproduction showed a material discrepancy
▸Reproduction agent’s raw note
DROP (non_pipeline) — INDEPENDENTLY RE-VERIFIED this run. Meseke, Rosenberger & Förster, Eur J Neurosci 2013; 37(9):1404-1412 (DOI 10.1111/ejn.12153, PMID 23406282) is a purely wet-lab cell-biology / immunofluorescence-microscopy study: primary dissociated hippocampal neuron cultures, transfection of WT and exchange-activity-deficient αPIX/Arhgef6 plus dominant-negative Cdc42 and Rac1, recombinant Reelin treatment, and manual microscopy scoring of whether the Golgi apparatus translocates into developing dendrites. The four quantitative claims (αPIX promotes dendritic Golgi translocation; Reelin amplifies it; exchange-deficient αPIX / dn-Cdc42 / dn-Rac1 impair it without Reelin rescue; Reelin biases translocation toward the dendrite proximal to the Reelin source) are all immunofluorescence-microscopy measurements. Europe PMC core record re-checked this run confirms: pmcid=null, isOpenAccess=N, inEPMC/inPMC=N, hasSuppl=N, hasDbCrossReferences=N; the only datalink category is Altmetric (social-attention, NOT a research-data accession). There is NO deposited dataset (no GEO/SRA/ENA/ArrayExpress/figshare/zenodo/dbGaP/EGA/PRIDE accession), NO analysis code repository, and NO computational pipeline of any kind; the only primary data are microscopy images, which are not deposited. Nothing is pipeline-derived and there is no shipped data to re-analyze, so there is nothing reproducible on «our HPC» and no compute was spent (correctly). This is a well-founded drop, not an our-side failure (healthy=true). NOT attempted: any reproduction of the microscopy quantification (out of scope, and impossible without the unpublished images).
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.
Assessment versions
Every reproduction run is kept as an immutable version — anchored to the data as it stood, with a tamper-evident chain hash. A rerun (e.g. after an author updates a deposit) adds a new version; the previous one stays on record.
-
v1 current initial assessmentassessed: 2026-06-19 ⛓ 214f7de7b707
✎ 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
- 2026-06-22
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-06-19no human curator yet
- Last updated
- 2026-08-05
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.
Scope — pmid-23406282
Title: Reelin and the Cdc42/Rac1 guanine nucleotide exchange factor αPIX/Arhgef6 promote dendritic Golgi translocation in hippocampal neurons. Authors: Meseke M, Rosenberger G, Förster E. Journal: European Journal of Neuroscience (2013) 37(9):1404–1412. DOI: 10.1111/ejn.12153 · PMID: 23406282 · PMCID: none
Screening verdict: DROP — non_pipeline
What kind of study is this?
A purely wet-lab cell-biology / fluorescence-microscopy study. The experimental system is primary dissociated hippocampal neuron culture (rodent). Methods used:
- transfection / overexpression of constructs: wild-type αPIX/Arhgef6, exchange-activity-deficient αPIX, dominant-negative (dn) Cdc42, dn-Rac1;
- recombinant Reelin treatment of the cultures;
- immunofluorescence staining of the Golgi apparatus (Golgi marker, e.g. GM130) and dendritic markers;
- manual / image-based scoring of whether the Golgi apparatus has translocated into a developing dendrite, quantified per condition as a proportion of cells, compared between conditions with standard statistics.
Is there any pipeline-derived computational result? NO.
- No high-throughput / sequencing / microarray / proteomics / imaging-ML data.
- No deposited dataset of any kind — no GEO / SRA / ENA / ArrayExpress / figshare / zenodo / dbGaP / EGA / PRIDE accession is reported (checked PubMed, Europe PMC, Wiley record; this is a 2013 EJN paper with no data-availability deposit).
- No analysis code repository (GitHub/GitLab/etc.) — none reported, none resolvable.
- Quantification is microscopy image scoring done by hand / with generic image tools; there is no reproducible bioinformatic pipeline and, critically, no shipped raw data (the microscopy images) on which any such analysis could be re-run.
In-scope results
None. All reported results are wet-lab / manual-imaging quantification, which is explicitly out of scope ("pipeline-derived computational results only", BRIEF §2).
Out-of-scope results (not attempted) — the paper's quantitative claims
All are immunofluorescence-microscopy measurements of dendritic Golgi translocation:
- αPIX/Arhgef6 overexpression promotes Golgi translocation into developing dendrites of hippocampal neurons.
- Reelin treatment further increases the αPIX-dependent effect.
- Exchange-activity-deficient αPIX, dn-Cdc42, or dn-Rac1 impair dendritic Golgi positioning; Reelin does not rescue this.
- Reelin promotes Golgi translocation into the dendrite most proximal to the Reelin source (directional effect).
Conclusion
No deposited data + no code + no computational pipeline → nothing to reproduce on
«our HPC». Recorded as a controlled drop: drop_reason = non_pipeline
(secondary: no_data_accession, no_code). This is a well-founded drop
(healthy = true): the paper was correctly screened as a wet-lab/imaging study with
no reproducible computational surface. No compute was spent (correctly).
No individual results have been recorded for this entry yet.
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.
This is a correctly-founded non_pipeline drop: Meseke, Rosenberger & Förster (Eur J Neurosci 2013;37(9):1404–1412) is a purely wet-lab immunofluorescence-microscopy study with no deposited data, no code, and no computational pipeline. Claims C1–C4 are manual per-condition % scoring of dendritic Golgi translocation, so there is no exact endpoint or shared data to put against any reproduced value (q1/q2 red). The inability to verify lies entirely on the data-availability side, not on the authors' science or our method — there is no measured deviation, no significance flip, and no fabrication signal, so q5/q7 are yellow (uncheckable, limited) rather than red, and the overall judgement is a clean, explainable drop.
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.
Reproduction footprint
claude-opus-4-8Measured resources invested to assess this paper — sanitised (machine class only, no job ids/paths). Compute = HPC accounting (SLURM); tokens = the AI agent's session.