Elucidation of the molecular responses to waterlogging in Jatropha roots by transcriptome profiling.
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
1:1 reproduction of the paper's core RNA-seq pipeline. Ran the FULL chain independently from raw SRA reads (SRR1275402-405) through TMAP alignment (built from source, two build fixes needed), HTSeq counting, and edgeR differential expression -- not just recomputing from GEO's provided intermediates. Mapping rates (93.2-96.3%) match the paper's reported 93-96% range exactly. DEG counts from GEO's own deposited raw counts exactly match the paper (1968 total/931 up/1037 down). DEG counts from my fully independent pipeline are within tolerance (2055 total/920 up/1135 down, all within ~1-9.5% of paper). Gene-level counts from my pipeline correlate strongly with GEO's own counts (r=0.88-0.98 raw, r>=0.984 log-scale) with a consistent ~12-20% higher total attributable to an unstated strandedness assumption and/or aligner version differences from the 2013 original. NOT attempted: GO enrichment, AP2/ERF HMM search, OrthoMCL clustering, qPCR validation -- all secondary analyses requiring external databases/wet-lab data not in the deposited dataset, none blocking the core reproduction.
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
- 2026-08-03
- Rubric version
- not recorded
- Assessed by
- —
- Last updated
- 2026-08-03
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: opusThe molecular mechanisms underlying waterlogging responses in the highly waterlogging-sensitive biodiesel crop Jatropha curcas are unknown; this study asks how the Jatropha root transcriptome is reprogrammed by 24 h of soil waterlogging, and which responses are conserved versus species-specific relative to Arabidopsis, gray poplar, and rice.
- ★ 24 h of waterlogging significantly alters mRNA abundance of 1968 genes in Jatropha roots (931 up, 1037 down). finding
- ★ Waterlogging promotes responses to hypoxia and anaerobic respiration while inhibiting carbohydrate synthesis, cell wall biogenesis, and growth. finding
- ★ Waterlogging promotes carbohydrate catabolism and a switch from oxidative to anaerobic respiration, via induced sugar/starch cleavage, glycolysis, and fermentation genes and repressed starch synthesis genes. mechanism
- ★ Ethylene, nitrate, and nitric oxide metabolism play roles in waterlogging acclimation, indicated by induction of ACS, ACO, ETR, ERFs, NR, NIR, nitrate transporter, and non-symbiotic hemoglobins. mechanism
- ★ Transcriptional reprogramming is a vital waterlogging acclimation mechanism: 85 waterlogging-induced transcription factors were identified, including AP2/ERF, MYB, and WRKY family members. finding
- ★ Comparative analysis of waterlogging-responsive transcripts among Arabidopsis, gray poplar, Jatropha, and rice reveals both conserved and species-specific regulation. finding
- Low-oxygen marker genes (ADHs, PDC) are induced by waterlogging in roots but not in leaves, justifying a root-focused transcriptome analysis. finding
- An RNA-seq resource of Jatropha waterlogged and non-stressed roots (NCBI GEO GSE57428) plus a genome-wide list of predicted Jatropha AP2/ERF genes. resource
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| bulk RNA-seq (poly(A)+ mRNA transcriptome profiling) | Jatropha curcas cv. "Chai Nat", roots of 30-day-old six-leaf-stage plants | 24 h soil waterlogging (water 3 cm above soil) vs. non-waterlogged control | read counts per gene / differentially expressed genes (FDR < 0.05), CPM values | Ion Proton sequencer with Ion Total RNA-seq kit (Life Technologies); Absolutely mRNA purification kit (Agilent); TRIzol (Invitrogen); GF-1 RNA extraction kit (Vivantis) |
| semi-quantitative reverse-transcription PCR | Jatropha curcas leaves and roots | 24 h waterlogging vs. control | expression of low-oxygen marker genes ADHs and PDC | — |
| quantitative real-time PCR (RT-qPCR, ΔΔcT) | Jatropha curcas root/leaf total RNA (1.2 μg, oligo(dT)20, SuperScript III) | waterlogging vs. control | relative gene expression normalized to Ubiquitin (UBC; Jcr4S00238.120) | Stratagene Mx3000P real-time PCR system (Agilent) with KAPA SYBR FAST qPCR master mix |
| total (non-structural) carbohydrate assay, anthrone method | Jatropha curcas frozen root tissue (100 mg) | long-term waterlogging vs. control | total carbohydrate content vs. glucose standard series, absorbance at 630 nm | — |
| leaf chlorophyll content measurement | Jatropha curcas youngest fully expanded leaves of ~30-day-old plants (6 plants per time point, 3 measurements each) | long-term waterlogging vs. control | atLEAF+ values converted to SPAD/total chlorophyll content | atLEAF+ chlorophyll meter (FT Green LLC) |
| bioinformatic transcriptome analysis (read mapping, differential expression, functional/GO enrichment) | Jatropha curcas genome release 4.5 (Kazusa) | none (computational) | DEGs by edgeR GLM likelihood ratio test (FDR < 0.05), 35 Mercator functional bins, GO enrichment (adjusted p < 0.05), PageMan Wilcoxon rank sum test (p < 0.05) | TMAP, HTSeq, R/edgeR, Mercator, MapMan, PageMan, GOANNA/GOHyperGALL |
| public microarray meta-analysis | GEO microarray datasets for Arabidopsis, gray poplar, and rice waterlogging/low-oxygen experiments | waterlogging/low oxygen vs. control (as in source studies) | DEGs from RMA-normalized data (FDR < 0.05, |log2 FC| ≥ 1) | — |
| comparative genomics: ortholog identification and AP2/ERF phylogenetic analysis | Jatropha, Arabidopsis, rice, and poplar protein sequence sets | none | OrthoMCL clusters (inflation 1.2); HMM-based AP2/ERF gene identification; Neighbor-Joining tree with 1000 bootstrap replicates | OrthoMCL v1.4, Pfam HMM profiles, MUSCLE/MEGA5 |
- – 1968 genes were differentially expressed after 24 h waterlogging in Jatropha roots 931 up (47%) / 1037 down (53%)
- ▲ Up-regulated DEGs enriched for response to stress, response to hypoxia, response to ethylene, and transcription factor activity adjusted p = 1.45E-08 (stress), 2.37E-03 (hypoxia), 7.34E-03 (ethylene), 4.08E-02 (TFs)
- ▼ Down-regulated DEGs enriched for cell wall organization/biogenesis, cellular carbohydrate biosynthesis, secondary metabolite biosynthesis, and growth adjusted p = 9.03E-10, 6.21E-04, 1.20E-03, 1.96E-03 respectively
- – PageMan analysis: DNA synthesis/chromatin structure genes down-regulated; protein degradation, calcium signaling, and sugar transport genes up-regulated p = 3.15E-03 (DNA/chromatin), 4.68E-02 (protein degradation), 9.59E-03 (calcium signaling), 4.07E-03 (sugar transport)
- – Induction of sugar/starch cleavage (alpha-amylase, SUSY), glycolysis (PFK, PK, GAPDH), fermentation (PDC, ADH) and AlaAT genes; repression of starch synthesis genes (AGPase, starch synthase)
- ▲ Up-regulation of nitrate metabolism genes (nitrate reductase, nitrite reductase, nitrate transporter) and non-symbiotic hemoglobins (nsHbs)
- ▲ Up-regulation of ethylene biosynthesis (ACS, ACO), ethylene receptor (ETR), and multiple ERF transcription factor genes
- – Long-term waterlogging caused leaf chlorosis and reduced total root carbohydrate content; ADH/PDC induced in roots but not leaves
- count 1968 differentially expressed genes (DEGs at FDR < 0.05 after 24 h waterlogging in roots)
- count 931 up-regulated (47%) and 1037 down-regulated (53%) (Direction split of the 1968 DEGs)
- count 85 waterlogging-induced transcription factors (Including AP2/ERF, MYB, and WRKY family members)
- correlation r = 0.93 and 0.85 (Pearson correlation of CPM values between biological replicates for NS and WS libraries, respectively)
- pvalue 1.45E-08 (Adjusted p-value for 'response to stress' GO enrichment in up-regulated DEGs)
- pvalue 9.03E-10 (Adjusted p-value for 'cell wall organization or biogenesis' GO enrichment in down-regulated DEGs)
- count over 4 million reads per biological replicate; 93–96% mapped to the Jatropha genome (RNA-seq sequencing depth and mapping rate)
- fold_change approximately 30% reduction in Jatropha biomass after 10 days of waterlogging (Prior finding cited from Gimeno et al. (2012), not measured in this study)
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 study compared root transcriptomes of Jatropha under waterlogging stress (WS) versus non-stress (NS) using RNA-seq with two biological replicates per condition, identifying differentially expressed genes (DEGs) with edgeR's generalized linear model likelihood ratio test (FDR < 0.05). Functional enrichment of the DEG set was assessed with a hypergeometric-based GO enrichment method (GOHyperGALL, adjusted p < 0.05) and cross-checked with PAGEMAN (Wilcoxon rank-sum test, p < 0.05). A comparative cross-species analysis used publicly available microarray data (Arabidopsis, poplar, rice), normalized by RMA and filtered for differential expression using an FDR (p-value distribution-based) threshold of 0.05 combined with a |log2 fold change| ≥ 1 cutoff. Results were reported primarily as exact (adjusted) p-values and fold-change values.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| edgeR GLM likelihood ratio test (glmLTR) | RNA-seq differential gene expression between WS and NS roots | two independent biological replicates per treatment | not stated |
| GOHyperGALL (hypergeometric-based GO term enrichment) | GO enrichment among up- and down-regulated DEGs | — | not stated |
| Wilcoxon rank-sum test (PAGEMAN) | functional category enrichment for up/down-regulated genes | — | not stated |
| Pearson's correlation coefficient | concordance of CPM values between biological replicates (NS and WS libraries) | two biological replicates | not stated |
| FDR via p-value distribution (Smyth, 2004 approach) | differential expression in public microarray data across Arabidopsis, poplar, rice comparisons | — | not stated |
-
Differential expression between WS and NS was tested with edgeR's GLM likelihood ratio test using two biological replicates per group.↳ Could also: DESeq2's Wald test or a limma-voom pipeline — These are widely used alternatives for RNA-seq count data; comparing results across tools is a common way to triangulate DEG calls, particularly when replicate numbers are small.
-
RNA-seq DEGs were defined using an FDR < 0.05 threshold alone, while the microarray comparisons combined FDR < 0.05 with a |log2FC| ≥ 1 cutoff.↳ Could also: Applying the same combined FDR plus fold-change cutoff to the RNA-seq DEG list — Matching filtering criteria across the RNA-seq and microarray datasets would make results from the two platforms directly comparable, which some analysts prefer for cross-platform comparisons.
-
GO term enrichment was assessed with a hypergeometric-based method (GOHyperGALL) applied to a defined list of up/down DEGs.↳ Could also: Gene set enrichment analysis (GSEA) — GSEA evaluates the full ranked gene list rather than a hard significance cutoff, which can also capture coordinated but individually sub-threshold expression changes.
-
Concordance between the two biological replicates was assessed using Pearson's correlation coefficient on CPM values.↳ Could also: Spearman's rank correlation — A rank-based correlation is less sensitive to a small number of genes with extreme CPM values and is also commonly used for RNA-seq replicate quality checks.
-
RNA-seq differential expression was based on two biological replicates per treatment.↳ Could also: Using a larger number of biological replicates (e.g., three or more per group) — Additional replicates generally improve dispersion estimation and statistical power in count-based models such as edgeR, and is an option some study designs use when feasible.
-
qPCR validation used the comparative ΔΔCt method to estimate relative expression, without a separately stated formal statistical test comparing WS and NS values.↳ Could also: A t-test or similar comparison performed on ΔCt values across biological replicates — This would provide a formal statistical comparison (e.g., a p-value) alongside the fold-change estimate already obtained from the ΔΔCt calculation.
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.