A cross-species approach to identify transcriptional regulators exemplified for Dnajc22 and Hnf4a.
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.
- ✓Same input data as the authors
- ✓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
- ✓Overall, the reproduction was clean
- 🟡Reported values were only indirectly comparable
- 🟡A deviation arose in the data or preprocessing
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
REPRODUCED (described well enough; honest 1:1 on the authors' own code + data). The paper's computational core is co-expression of a gene-of-interest with candidate TFs across tissues; its headline computational claim is that Hnf4a is strongly co-expressed with (a top correlate of) Dnajc22 across species. Re-running the authors' own two R pipelines (repo schultzelab/Dnajc22-regulation @ 72f3d14) on the paper's own data on «our HPC» reproduces this 1:1 in BOTH species: mouse Affymetrix GSE10246 (103 CEL -> RMA -> tissue-mean -> cor) gives r(Dnajc22,Hnf4a)=0.95 with Hnf4a the #1 correlate of all 18,197 genes; human RNA-seq GSE16256/Roadmap (DESeq2 -> tissue-mean -> cor, counts shipped in the repo) gives r(DNAJC22,HNF4A)=0.99 with HNF4A the #1 correlate of all 16,140 genes. The paper says 'one of the highest correlations' / 'strong relationship'; our reproduction shows Hnf4a is in fact THE single highest correlate in both species (if anything the paper understates). A cross-check (DESeq2 re-normalisation from the shipped raw counts reproduces the shipped normalised table's correlation exactly) shows no fabrication in that artifact. NOT attempted (out of scope / 80-20): the SOM 225-gene cluster (shipped SOM code has placeholder bugs: som.input2 undefined, genename='Creld1', hard-coded cluster indices; seed/scale sensitive -> not faithfully runnable as shipped); pcaGoPromoter/iRegulon TF prediction (iRegulon is a Cytoscape GUI; pcaGoPromoter PRIMO depends on the unreproducible SOM membership); WGCNA/BioLayout network; all wet-lab (ChIP-qPCR, luciferase) and fly/zebrafish validation; the exact printed heatmap r cells (inside Supplementary Figure images) were not OCR-compared. «our HPC» notes: bioconda Bioconductor data/annotation packages (genomeinfodbdata, mouse4302.db/cdf, org.Mm.eg.db) have post-link downloads unreachable from compute nodes -> installed source tarballs from the tu-dortmund Bioc mirror; preprocessCore rebuilt --disable-threading to clear the affy::rma pthread_create=22 cgroup bug. These grades are PROVISIONAL; a human auditor decides ground truth.
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 assessment Score 76assessed: 2026-06-16 ⛓ 1bb4f7947e44
✎ 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
- 2026-06-16
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-06-16no 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.
Deep full-text extraction
Model: opusThe paper tests whether an integrated cross-species computational and experimental workflow—built on the hypothesis that transcription factors and their target genes are co-expressed across tissues and species—can identify the transcriptional regulator of the uncharacterized gene Dnajc22, proposing Hnf4a as that regulator.
- ★ Hnf4a is a major transcriptional regulator of Dnajc22. finding
- ★ A combined in silico (SOM co-expression clustering + sequence-based TF binding prediction) and wet-lab validation approach can identify the regulating TF for a gene of interest. method
- ★ Hnf4a directly binds the Dnajc22 locus near the transcription start site / 5' UTR. mechanism
- ★ The Hnf4a binding site H4 at +50 bp is the functionally relevant, most conserved site in the murine Dnajc22 promoter. mechanism
- ★ The Hnf4a-Dnajc22 regulatory loop is conserved in fruitfly, zebrafish, and humans. finding
- ★ Altering cellular Hnf4a levels (KO/knockdown/overexpression) correspondingly alters Dnajc22 expression across species. finding
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bulk transcriptome / microarray co-expression analysis (SOM clustering, WGCNA, iRegulon, pcaGoPromoter) | Mus musculus murine gene atlas (104 of 182 transcriptomes; 22 organs, 14 tissues, 16 cell types) | none | co-expression of Dnajc22 with TFs; predicted TF regulators | GSE10246 (public dataset) |
| Bulk transcriptome co-expression analysis (SOM clustering, iRegulon, pcaGoPromoter) | Human tissues (25 transcriptomes; 6 organs, 5 tissues, 2 cell types) | none | co-expression of DNAJC22 with HNF4A; predicted TF regulators | GSE16256 (Roadmap Epigenomics) |
| Microarray / transcriptome re-analysis of Hnf4a perturbation datasets | Liver-specific Hnf4a KO mouse; human HCC cells; HEK cells; HCT116 colon cancer cells; rat INS-1 insulinoma cells; human RCC tissue | KO/knockdown(siRNA)/overexpression | Dnajc22 transcript levels relative to Hnf4a manipulation | GEO datasets (six studies) |
| ChIP-seq re-analysis (peak calling with MACS2) | Rat kidney; mouse intestine; human HCT116 colon carcinoma cells | none | Hnf4a binding peaks at Dnajc22 locus | GEO datasets; MACS2 |
| ChIP-qPCR (anti-HNF4A) | Murine kidney cortex samples | none | enrichment of Hnf4a binding to Dnajc22 promoter fragment (Apoc3 positive, Hprt1 exon 9 negative controls) | — |
| Luciferase reporter assay (2 kb Dnajc22 promoter; binding-site mutants H1-H4) | Murine M-1 kidney cell line | heterologous human HNF4A expression / overexpression | luciferase activity / promoter responsiveness | — |
| Quantitative real-time PCR (loss-of-function) | Drosophila melanogaster Hnf4 mutant larvae | Hnf4 mutant (KO) | wurst (Dnajc22 ortholog) transcript levels | — |
| Quantitative real-time PCR (gain-of-function) | Zebrafish embryos and HEK293 cells | heterologous/overexpression of human HNF4A | endogenous dnajc22/DNAJC22 transcript levels | — |
- ▲ Heterologous HNF4A expression increased Dnajc22 promoter-driven luciferase activity in M-1 cells. 10.45-fold (P=0.02, n=6)
- ▼ Mutation of binding site H4 abolished HNF4A-induced luciferase activity (to background), unlike H1-H3. P=0.0003, n=4
- ▼ Liver-specific Hnf4a knockout reduced Dnajc22 transcript to background levels.
- – HNF4A knockdown by siRNA decreased DNAJC22 levels; overexpression in HEK and HCT116 cells induced DNAJC22.
- ▲ Hnf4a ChIP-seq showed peaks near Dnajc22 TSS/5'UTR in rat, mouse, and human; confirmed by ChIP-qPCR in mouse kidney.
- – Hnf4a and Dnajc22 orthologs are co-regulated in fruitfly (Hnf4 mutant), zebrafish (HNF4A OE), and HEK293 (HNF4A OE).
- – Hnf4a was among the highest-correlated TFs with Dnajc22 in co-expression/correlation analyses; SOM cluster of 225 genes, 19-gene subcluster with 5 TFs.
- ▲ In rat INS-1 cells, Dnajc22 was influenced mainly by HNF4A, little by HNF1B, none by HNF6.
- fold_change 10.45 fold (Luciferase activity increase upon HNF4A expression vs control in M-1 cells)
- pvalue P = 0.02 (Significance of luciferase increase with HNF4A)
- pvalue P = 0.0003 (H4 mutant luciferase at background after HNF4A expression)
- count 225 genes (Size of murine SOM-cluster containing Dnajc22)
- count 19 genes (Dnajc22-containing subcluster; five of which were TFs (Foxa2, Foxa3, Hnf4a, Nr1h4, Nr5a2))
- count 104 transcriptomes (of 182) (Murine gene atlas dataset GSE10246 across 22 organs, 14 tissues, 16 cell types)
- count 25 transcriptomes (Human Roadmap dataset GSE16256: 6 organs, 5 tissues, 2 cell types)
- count 49 species (Number of species with single Dnajc22/wurst orthologs (Ensembl))
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 combines computational co-expression clustering (self-organizing maps, WGCNA, Pearson correlation across tissue transcriptome atlases) with experimental wet-lab validation to identify Hnf4a as a transcriptional regulator of Dnajc22. Significance testing in wet-lab experiments relied on one-sided t-test variants (unpaired, one-sample, and paired) applied separately to each dataset or assay. Results are reported with selective exact p-values and one fold-change estimate; no correction for multiple comparisons across the many independent tests is described.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| one-sided t-test (unpaired) | Re-analysis of six GEO transcriptome datasets for Hnf4a perturbation effects on Dnajc22 expression (Fig. 2a–f) | varies by dataset: n=3, 4, 2, 3, 2, 4 | not stated |
| one-sided one-sample t-test | ChIP-qPCR enrichment of Hnf4a at the Dnajc22 locus in murine kidney cortex (Fig. 3d) | — | not stated |
| one-sided paired t-test | Luciferase reporter assays in M-1 cells with heterologous HNF4A expression, wild-type and single-site mutant constructs (Fig. 4b, 4d) | n=6 (Fig. 4b); n=4 (Fig. 4d) | not stated |
| one-sided paired t-test | qPCR validation of Dnajc22 co-regulation with Hnf4a in Drosophila, zebrafish, and HEK293 cells (Fig. 5a–c) | three independent experiments per panel | not stated |
| Pearson's correlation coefficient | Co-expression matrix of Dnajc22-related family members and predicted TFs across murine tissues (Supplementary Fig. 2b) | 104 murine transcriptomes | not stated |
-
All inferential tests throughout the wet-lab validation were one-sided (one-sided t-test, one-sided one-sample t-test, one-sided paired t-test)↳ Could also: Two-sided versions of the same t-tests could also have been applied — Two-sided tests do not require a prior directional hypothesis to be specified; they are the conventional default in many reporting guidelines and remain valid even when the direction of an effect is anticipated, while guarding against undocumented directional assumptions
-
Multiple separate significance tests were performed across six independent GEO re-analysis comparisons and three cross-species qPCR experiments with no stated multiplicity adjustment↳ Could also: A Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction or Bonferroni adjustment could also have been applied across this family of tests — Adjusting for the number of comparisons controls the expected rate of false discoveries; this is commonly described when many tests are performed within a single study, and its absence or explicit justification is often requested by reviewers
-
Some wet-lab groups had very small sample sizes (n=2), and parametric t-tests were used throughout↳ Could also: Non-parametric alternatives such as the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (for paired designs) or exact permutation tests could also have been applied — At n=2 the normality assumption underlying t-tests cannot be assessed empirically; non-parametric and permutation-based approaches make no distributional assumptions, though they also have very limited power at such small n
-
Pearson's correlation coefficients were used to build the co-expression matrix across tissues↳ Could also: Spearman's rank correlation could also have been used — Spearman correlation is robust to outliers and to monotone non-linear relationships and is widely used for microarray and RNA-seq data, which can be right-skewed or contain extreme values that disproportionately influence Pearson coefficients
-
No dispersion measure (SD, SEM, or CI) is reported or depicted for any of the wet-lab quantitative results↳ Could also: Reporting SD or 95% CI alongside point estimates could also have been standard practice — Dispersion measures communicate data variability and estimation precision, which are especially informative at small n; many journals' statistical reporting checklists explicitly request them alongside means and p-values
-
SOM clustering was used as the primary co-expression grouping method, with WGCNA presented only as a supplementary confirmatory analysis↳ Could also: WGCNA or hierarchical clustering with a defined linkage criterion could also have served as the primary framework, with SOM as a cross-validation — Different clustering algorithms make different assumptions about cluster topology and gene-module boundaries; presenting two methods with equivalent status and comparing their outputs can strengthen the case that identified co-expression relationships are robust to the choice of algorithm
Citation network
Where this publication sits in the reproducibility-weighted citation graph — what it is built on, and what is built on it. Citation data from OpenAlex.
No assessed neighbours yet — the network grows as more papers are assessed.
Data lineage
The datasets this paper uses (text-mined from the full text via Europe PMC), and which other assessed papers stand on the same data. A shared dataset is a factual link — not a judgement.
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — pmid-28642491
A cross-species approach to identify transcriptional regulators exemplified for Dnajc22 and Hnf4a. Aschenbrenner, Bassler, Brondolin, Bonaguro, Carrera, Klee, Ulas, Schultze, Hoch. Sci Rep 2017; 7:4365. PMCID PMC5481429. DOI 10.1038/s41598-017-04370-9.
- Code: https://github.com/LIMES-immunogenomics/Dnajc22-regulation
(redirects to schultzelab/Dnajc22-regulation, default branch
master, HEAD commit72f3d1463e7605a6ec27a843c9d1b3f9d47909c7, pushed 2017-04-11, public, not archived, no license file). Authors' OWN analysis code. - Data:
- Mouse: GEO GSE10246 (Lattin/GNF mouse gene-atlas, Affymetrix
Mouse430 2.0). Paper used 104 of 182 transcriptomes (22 organs, 14 tissues,
16 cell types). Sample→tissue map shipped in repo
(
affy_scripts/sample_info.txt,samples_*-dataset.txt). - Human: RNA-seq HTSeq count tables for 13 tissues (×1–2 replicates, 26
files) shipped inside the repo (
RNA-Seq_scripts/expression-files/ *_counted.txt) plus the authors' DESeq-normalised table (RNA-Seq_scripts/DESeq-norm_ex_tbl.txt). No external download needed.
- Mouse: GEO GSE10246 (Lattin/GNF mouse gene-atlas, Affymetrix
Mouse430 2.0). Paper used 104 of 182 transcriptomes (22 organs, 14 tissues,
16 cell types). Sample→tissue map shipped in repo
(
Nature of the paper
Methods/proof-of-concept paper: a generic in-silico workflow (co-expression by self-organizing maps + sequence-based TF-binding prediction) to nominate a transcriptional regulator, exemplified on Dnajc22 → Hnf4a, then validated with wet-lab (ChIP-qPCR, luciferase) and cross-species (fly, zebrafish, human). The computational core is two R pipelines (mouse affy + human RNA-seq) that: RMA/DESeq-normalise → background-filter → unique-gene → SOM-cluster → pcaGoPromoter PRIMO TF prediction → Pearson correlation matrix of the GOI vs candidate TFs/family members.
In scope (pipeline-derived, attempted)
The repo's two R scripts are the pipeline. The cleanest pinnable, low-hanging
quantitative output is the Pearson correlation between Dnajc22/DNAJC22 and
Hnf4a/HNF4A across tissues — the paper's central quantitative co-expression
claim ("One of the highest correlations was observed between Hnf4a and Dnajc22",
Results; Suppl. Fig. 2b mouse / Suppl. Fig. 4 human). cor() of R is named
explicitly in Methods ("Pearson correlation coefficient matrix").
- DP-human (primary, self-contained — data shipped in repo):
run
RNASeq_pipeline.Rlogic headless on the shipped HTSeq counts (DESeq2 size-factor normalise → floor → ≥200 background filter → tissue-mean → log10 →cor). Report r(DNAJC22, HNF4A) across human tissues and HNF4A's rank among DNAJC22's correlations. Cross-check against shippedDESeq-norm_ex_tbl.txt. Maps to Suppl. Fig. 4. - DP-mouse (primary): download GSE10246 CEL for the 104 paper samples on a
«our HPC» compute node →
affyRMA → background filter (>6) → unique-gene → tissue-mean →cor. Report r(Dnajc22, Hnf4a) and Hnf4a's rank among Dnajc22's correlations within the 16-gene TF/family panel of the script. Maps to Fig. 1 / Suppl. Fig. 2b. - DP-tf (secondary, attempt-if-time): pcaGoPromoter PRIMO on the Dnajc22-associated gene set → is Hnf4a among the top predicted TFs (paper Fig. 1d: pcaGoPromoter → Hnf4a, Hnf1b, Nr1h2, Hnf1a)?
Out of scope (not attempted, why)
- SOM subcluster size = 225 genes (mouse): the shipped SOM block has
placeholder bugs (
som.input2is undefined;genename = "Creld1"instead of Dnajc22; hard-coded cluster indices\b3\b,\b7\b). Result is highly sensitive to seed/scaling/training-subset and the exact (unshipped) variable state. The hard ~20% → documented, not chased. - iRegulon predictions (Hnf4a, Hnf1b, Gata1, Cdx2): iRegulon is a Cytoscape GUI plugin, not in the repo, not scriptable headless → external.
- WGCNA / BioLayout Express 3D network (464 nodes, 5,834 edges): BioLayout is a GUI tool; not shipped → external.
- TFBIND / PROMO / MATCH binding-site screens; ChIP-qPCR, luciferase, fly/zebrafish wet-lab validation → manual/we
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.
The paper's central computational claim — a strong cross-species co-expression between Dnajc22/DNAJC22 and Hnf4a/HNF4A — reproduces 1:1 on the authors' own pipelines and public/shipped data (mouse r=0.95, human r=0.99, with Hnf4a/HNF4A the single top correlate genome-wide in both species). The only deviations are on the periphery and are minor or on the authors' side: the operative r is never printed numerically (heatmap-only, hence an indirect endpoint, q2 yellow), a trivial 103-vs-104 sample off-by-one (q3 yellow), and a buggy shipped SOM code block that leaves the secondary 225-gene cluster / pcaGoPromoter claims unverified. A DESeq2 re-normalisation from the shipped raw counts matches the shipped normalised table, so there is no fabrication signal; severity is negligible and the core conclusion holds fully.
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.