Ecotype diversity and conversion in Photobacterium profundum strains.
The main results reproduced: recomputed values matched the published ones within tolerance.
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
This is a 1:1-vs-partial reproduction. Using the paper's own third-party-style repo (flauro/3tck_comparative, 3 Perl scripts: ANI.pl, COG_scrambler.pl, scaffolding.pl) applied to the two deposited public assemblies (3TCK: GCA_000153425.1 under BioProject PRJNA13563; SS9 reference: GCA_000196255.1 under PRJNA13128), the core comparative-genomics claim reproduces closely: ANI 92.76% vs reported 92.85%, percent conserved DNA 63.25% vs reported 62.68%, both within-tolerance using the paper's own stated parameters (fragment 1020bp, min identity 30%, min alignable 714bp). Basic genome stats for 3TCK also match almost exactly: 11/11 scaffolds, 5549/5549 ORFs, length within 0.0065%, GC 40.77% vs 41.3% reported (minor discrepancy). Going beyond the floor, we additionally built an independent COG-assignment pipeline (rpsblast vs NCBI's classic COG database) and ran the repo's own COG_scrambler.pl with the paper's stated resampling parameters (subsample 4000, 10000 bootstraps); all three qualitative COG-category claims from the paper's Figure 4 reproduce in the same direction and significance (category C over-represented in 3TCK; N and L under-represented in 3TCK / over-represented in SS9), and the specific transposase-family claim (SS9 >> 3TCK) reproduces directionally (43 vs 0 for COG3436) though not at the same magnitude as the paper's reported 72 vs ~3 (different, unspecified original annotation pipeline). NOT attempted: the Ka/Ks ortholog-divergence analysis (no shipped or clearly-specified tool), the scaffolding.pl pseudomolecule-construction step (its pre-scaffold raw contig input is not public), and all wet-lab results (rRNA PFGE counts, UV survival, conjugation) which are explicitly out of scope. Dataset profiling surfaced one notable finding: the RU's 'sra:PRJNA13563' pointer is misleading -- NCBI SRA has zero run records for this BioProject; only the finished WGS assembly is public, so the underlying raw Sanger reads cannot be independently re-assembled by a third party.
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
- 2026-08-06
- Rubric version
- not recorded
- Assessed by
- —
- Last updated
- 2026-08-06
Provisional, curator- or AI-assessed, and independently checkable. A reproduction outcome states what one attempt could reproduce — not a judgement of the authors.
Deep full-text extraction
Model: opusWhich genomic features distinguish the deep-sea piezophilic Photobacterium profundum strain SS9 from the shallow-water non-piezophilic strain 3TCK and thereby define each strain's Hutchinsonian (depth) niche, and whether horizontal gene transfer of such features can mediate rapid bathytype conversion.
- ★ No single gene restricts the environmental niche of each bathytype; instead a set of strain-specific genetic features confers depth-specific stress tolerance (temperature, pressure, nutrients). finding
- ★ Bathytype evolution in P. profundum is driven primarily by gene acquisition and loss (HGT/adaptive radiation) rather than by sequence substitution/positive selection. mechanism
- ★ Transfer of 3TCK-specific photorepair (phr) genes into SS9 demonstrates that horizontal gene transfer can provide a mechanism for rapid colonisation of new environments, i.e. bathytype conversion. finding
- ★ Lack of UV photorepair function is predicted to restrict colonization of shallow waters by deep bathytypes. mechanism
- ★ Despite 16S identity consistent with one species, SS9 and 3TCK fall below genome-level species thresholds (ANI and conserved DNA). finding
- The draft genome sequence of P. profundum 3TCK is a new resource (NCBI BioProject PRJNA13563), with custom perl analysis scripts released at https://github.com/flauro/3tck_comparative. resource
- Genes unique to each bathytype are concentrated on chromosome 2, the chromosome previously implicated in gene capture for environmental adaptation in Vibrionaceae. finding
- This is the first study combining intra-specific sequence comparison with molecular genetics to address niche partitioning in piezophilic bacteria. method
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whole-genome shotgun sequencing and de novo assembly (4 kb and 40 kb insert libraries) | Photobacterium profundum strain 3TCK (shallow bathytype), genomic DNA from mid-exponential culture | none | Draft genome sequence: scaffolds, genome length, GC content, predicted ORFs | J. Craig Venter Institute sequencing; Celera assembler; NCBI PGAAP annotation pipeline |
| Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis of I-CeuI-digested chromosomal plugs | P. profundum strains SS9, DSJ4 and 3TCK | I-CeuI restriction digest (overnight) | Number of ribosomal RNA (rrn) operon copies / chromosome fragment pattern | 0.95% PFGE agarose in 0.5x TBE, 6 V/cm, 120° included angle, 14°C |
| Comparative genomics: ACT nucleotide alignment, orthology/Venn gene-content comparison, ANI, conserved DNA | In silico: P. profundum 3TCK draft genome vs SS9 reference genome (PRJNA13128) | none | Synteny, insertions/deletions, inversions, translocations, shared vs unique gene counts, average nucleotide identity, percent conserved DNA | ACT; custom perl scripts; Goris et al. ANI method (fragment 1020 bp, min identity 30%, min alignable region 714 bp) |
| COG functional category assignment with resampling-based statistical comparison | In silico: predicted ORFs of 3TCK and SS9 | none | Over/under-representation of COG categories (median differences after resampling) | Rodriguez-Brito method, subsample size 4000, 10,000 bootstraps |
| Ka/Ks (ω) selection analysis and divergence-time estimation | In silico: orthologous gene pairs between 3TCK and SS9 | none | ω per ortholog pair, number of pairs with ω>1, Fisher exact test significance, median divergence time τ = Ks/(2λ) | Reciprocal smallest distance algorithm; MUSCLE; KaKs calculator (YN00 method); λ = 8.3×10−7 SNPs/site/year |
| Codon usage bias analysis | In silico: genes of P. profundum genomes | none | Per-gene codon usage vs genome-wide modal codon usage, Chi-square significance (p-value threshold 0.1) | Karlin method implemented in custom perl script |
| Molecular cloning and tri-parental conjugation (heterologous gene transfer) | P. profundum SS9 recipient; E. coli DH5α/XL1-Blue/TOP10 cloning hosts; helper E. coli with pRK2073 | Introduction of 3TCK phr gene cluster (P3TCK_10673 rpoX, P3TCK_10668, P3TCK_10663 phr) in pFL122/pFL190 constructs pFL303–pFL307, including the Δ22 promoter/rpoX deletion series and arabinose-inducible phr | Construct identity/insert directionality by PCR and dideoxy sequencing; conjugal transfer of UV-resistance genes | Expand Long Template PCR system (Roche); NEB restriction enzymes; Applied Biosystems fluorescent-terminator sequencing |
| In vivo photoreactivation / UV survival assay (c.f.u. counting) | P. profundum strains plated on 75% strength 2216 Marine Agar, grown at 15°C for 5 days | UV irradiation (254 nm, 10 s, 220 µW/cm2) with or without 1 h blue-light recovery (350–400 nm, 20 µW/cm2); untreated control | Percent survival (c.f.u. of irradiated vs untreated controls) | Philips G25 T8 germicidal lamp (253.7 nm); Philips TLD 15 W/08 black light; Spectroline DM-365 XA digital radiometer |
- – 3TCK draft genome: 11 scaffolds, 6,186,725 bp, 41.3% GC, 5549 ORFs; organised in two chromosomes but lacking the 80 kb dispensable plasmid of SS9 6,186,725 bp; 5549 ORFs
- ▼ 16S rRNA gene identity between 3TCK and SS9 indicates same species, but ANI and percent conserved DNA fall below genome-level species thresholds (ANI>95%, conserved DNA>69%) ANI 92.85%; conserved DNA 62.68% vs 16S 98.73%
- – Only four orthologous gene pairs had ω>1 and none were statistically significant, indicating little detectable positive selection 4 gene pairs; P<0.01 threshold not met
- – Median divergence time between the strains was ~126,833 years, comparable to the establishment of modern thermohaline circulation 126,833 years
- – COG comparison: shallow bathytype 3TCK over-represented in energy production (C) and under-represented in motility/chemotaxis (N) and DNA replication, recombination and repair (L); category L abundance in SS9 attributed to numerous transposable elements significant at 98% significance
- ▼ 3TCK carries at least 9 rrn operon copies, above the median for microbial genomes but fewer than SS9's 15; 3TCK operons are nearly identical whereas SS9 operons show intragenomic variation 9 copies (3TCK) vs 15 copies (SS9)
- ▼ 3TCK has larger-than-average intergenic regions, though smaller than in the deep bathytype SS9 ~167 bp (3TCK) vs ~205 bp (SS9)
- – Genome comparison shows extreme synteny with many insertions/deletions and multiple inversions across origin/terminus of both chromosomes but few interchromosomal translocations; unique genes concentrated on chromosome 2
- other 98.73% 16S rRNA gene sequence identity (3TCK vs SS9 16S identity, consistent with same species)
- other ANI 92.85%; percent conserved DNA 62.68% (Genome-level comparison of 3TCK vs SS9, below species thresholds (ANI>95%, conserved DNA>69%))
- count 6,186,725 bp total in 11 scaffolds; 41.3% GC; 5549 ORFs (3TCK draft genome general features)
- count 4 orthologous gene pairs with ω>1, none significant by Fisher exact test (P<0.01) (Global Ka/Ks analysis of positive selection)
- other median divergence time 126,833 years; λ = 8.3×10−7 SNPs/site/year (τ = Ks/(2λ) medianed across all ortholog pairs)
- count at least 9 rrn operon copies in 3TCK vs 15 in SS9 (I-CeuI PFGE estimate of ribosomal RNA operon copy number)
- mean ~167 bp (3TCK) vs ~205 bp (SS9) average intergenic region length (Intergenic region size comparison between bathytypes)
- other UV dose 220 µW/cm2 for 10 s at 253.7 nm; photoreactivation 20 µW/cm2 for 1 h at 350–400 nm (In vivo photoreactivation assay conditions, triplicate dilution series per strain)
Statistical methods review
Model: sonnetA neutral, descriptive read of the statistical approach — what was done, and (for shared learning, not as criticism) what could also have been done.
The paper reports a comparative genomics study of two Photobacterium profundum bathytypes (deep-water SS9 and shallow-water 3TCK), combined with a small in vivo UV-survival/photoreactivation experiment. Statistical treatment consists of a handful of targeted significance tests applied to specific comparisons (COG category representation, dN/dS ratios of orthologous gene pairs, and per-gene codon usage bias) rather than a unified statistical framework, and results are reported mainly as significance thresholds and percentages rather than as full test statistics.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Resampling/bootstrap-based comparison (method of Rodriguez-Brito) | Statistical comparison of COG category representation between the SS9 and 3TCK genomes (Figure 4) | subsample size of 4000, 10,000 bootstraps, evaluated at 98% significance | not stated |
| Fisher's exact test | Significance of orthologous gene pairs with a Ka/Ks ratio (ω) > 1 | four gene pairs identified with ω>1; total ortholog pairs tested not stated; threshold P<0.01 | not stated |
| Chi-square test | Per-gene codon usage bias compared to the genome-wide mode of codon usage | not stated (applied per gene across the genome); p-value threshold set to 0.1 | not stated |
-
COG category over/under-representation between the two bathytypes was assessed with a bootstrap resampling method at a 98% significance threshold, applied across multiple COG categories.↳ Could also: A false-discovery-rate procedure such as Benjamini-Hochberg could also be applied across the full set of COG category tests. — This would explicitly control the expected proportion of false positives when many categories are tested simultaneously, complementing the per-category bootstrap threshold already used.
-
Significance of elevated Ka/Ks ratios (ω>1) for orthologous gene pairs was assessed with a Fisher exact test.↳ Could also: A likelihood ratio test comparing models with and without positive selection (e.g., as implemented in PAML/codeml) could also be used. — Likelihood-based selection tests can incorporate site-to-site or branch-to-branch variation in ω and provide a model-based framework for testing positive selection, complementing the pairwise Fisher exact test approach.
-
Codon usage bias per gene was tested against the genome-wide mode using a chi-square test with a p-value threshold of 0.1.↳ Could also: Applying a multiple-testing correction (e.g., FDR) across the many genes tested, or using an exact test for smaller counts, could also be used. — With many genes evaluated in parallel, an FDR-adjusted threshold would help contextualize how many of the nominally significant genes might be expected by chance, and an exact test can be more appropriate than chi-square when expected counts are small.
-
UV survival differences between strains were summarized as percent survival from triplicate platings, without a stated formal statistical comparison between conditions or strains.↳ Could also: Reporting a dispersion measure (e.g., SD or 95% CI) across replicate platings and applying a t-test or ANOVA (with post-hoc correction for multiple strain comparisons) could also be used. — This would allow readers to gauge variability across the triplicate measurements and provide a formal statistical comparison of survival between strains and treatment conditions, in addition to the reported percentages.
-
The time of divergence between strains was estimated as a single median value from a fixed substitution rate, without an accompanying interval estimate.↳ Could also: A bootstrap-based or Bayesian confidence/credible interval around the divergence time estimate could also be reported. — This would convey the uncertainty around the point estimate of divergence time, complementing the single median value derived from the fixed molecular clock rate.
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.
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.