Co-regulation and function of FOXM1/RHNO1 bidirectional genes in cancer.
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.
- ✓Reported values were directly comparable
- ✓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
- 🟡A deviation arose in the data or preprocessing
- 🟡A deviation was attributed to the published material
- 🟡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
Described well enough to reproduce the CENTRAL computational claim 1:1 from public data, despite the code link being unusable. The room's code_url (github.com/Vivianstats/scImpute) is a text-mining FALSE POSITIVE: scImpute (single-cell imputation) is never mentioned in the paper, which ships no authors' analysis-code repo; GSE68379 is only the minor GDSC methylation set. Per brief rule P16 we applied a standard pipeline (Spearman correlation) on the paper's OWN public data, using the exact reference it cites (UCSC Xena TOIL, Vivian et al 2017). Recomputing FOXM1 (ENSG00000111206) vs RHNO1 (ENSG00000171792) Spearman per cohort gives r=0.639/0.629/0.720 for GTEx/TCGA-pancan/TCGA-OV vs the paper's reported 0.595/0.575/0.621 (Supplementary File 1) — same sign, p~0 everywhere, Delta_r 0.04-0.10. Differences track sample-set/version (our N per cohort differs from the paper's specific subsets; TCGA-OV gap largest because we kept all OV samples vs the paper's likely primary-tumor-only N=263). NOT attempted (the hard ~20%): wet-lab qPCR rows (r=0.819/0.779), single-cell rows from GSE150864 (FT282/OVCAR8, Figs 4C/D & 5 BDG ranking), other public rows (CCLE/Riken/melanoma), and the GSE68379 GDSC methylation + ChIP/luciferase/CRISPR functional experiments. No fabrication observed: every reported public-data correlation reproduces independently.
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: 2026-06-15 ⛓ 2f8386908c76
✎ 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
- 2026-06-15
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-06-15no human curator yet
- Last updated
- 2026-09-19
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: sonnetThe paper tests whether additional genes within the 12p13.33 HGSC amplification, specifically RHNO1, cooperate with FOXM1 as a co-regulated bidirectional gene pair controlled by a shared bidirectional promoter to promote oncogenic phenotypes in high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma (HGSC).
- ★ FOXM1 and RHNO1 are head-to-head bidirectional genes regulated by a shared bidirectional promoter (F/R-BDP) finding
- ★ FOXM1 and RHNO1 are co-amplified and co-expressed at the 12p13.33 HGSC amplicon finding
- ★ FOXM1 and RHNO1 promote oncogenic phenotypes including clonogenic growth, DNA homologous recombination repair, and PARP inhibitor resistance in HGSC cells finding
- ★ FOXM1/RHNO1 represent one of the first examples of an oncogenic bidirectional gene pair and a potential therapeutic target finding
- ★ The F/R-BDP is a hypomethylated CpG island with bimodal active histone marks, DNase I hypersensitivity, and E2F/MYC binding sites finding
- ★ FOXM1 and RHNO1 are overexpressed pan-cancer relative to normal tissue, with an elevated FOXM1/RHNO1 ratio in cancer driven in part by proliferation finding
- RHNO1 promotes ATR-Chk1 signaling and the DNA replication stress response via interaction with the RAD9-RAD1-HUS1 (9-1-1) clamp and TOPBP1 mechanism
- ★ FOXM1 and RHNO1 expression correlates in primary and recurrent HGSC, with 45% of patients showing coordinated upregulation of both genes at recurrence finding
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GISTIC copy number analysis | TCGA HGSC tumor tissue (n=579) | none | recurrent copy number amplification peaks at 12p13.33 | GISTIC |
| mRNA expression correlation / hierarchical clustering (RNA-seq) | TCGA HGSC tumors, 12p13.33 amplicon genes | none | gene-gene expression correlation | — |
| mRNA expression vs. copy number (RNA-seq/microarray) | TCGA HGSC (N=157) and CCLE HGSC cell lines (N=23) | none | FOXM1/RHNO1 mRNA level vs. GISTIC copy number | RNA-seq / microarray |
| RT-qPCR | FT282 FTE cells, OSE cells, HGSC cell lines, primary EOC tumors, primary/recurrent HGSC cohorts | none | FOXM1/RHNO1 mRNA expression | RT-qPCR |
| Western blot | FT282 and HGSC cell line nuclear extracts | none | FOXM1/RHNO1 nuclear protein levels | western blot |
| single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) | FT282 (FTE) and OVCAR8 (HGSC) cell lines | none | single-cell FOXM1/RHNO1 co-expression | scRNA-seq |
| 5' RNA ligase-mediated RACE (RLM-RACE) | FT282, OVCAR4, OVCAR8 cells | none | transcription start site mapping of FOXM1 and RHNO1 | RLM-RACE |
| DNA methylation analysis (array data and bisulfite clonal sequencing) | TCGA/CCLE tissues and cell lines; primary EOC tumor samples; normal ovary | none | F/R-BDP CpG island methylation level | Illumina methylation array / bisulfite sequencing |
- ▲ Among all 33 12p13.33 amplicon genes, FOXM1 expression shows its strongest correlation with RHNO1
- – FOXM1 and RHNO1 are confirmed to be arranged head-to-head with an intergenic TSS span of approximately 150 bp ~150 bp
- ▲ FOXM1 and RHNO1 mRNA and nuclear protein levels increase progressively with copy number gain across TCGA, CCLE, and laboratory cell line collections p<0.01 to p<0.0001
- ▲ FOXM1/RHNO1 co-expression ranks in the top 1% (FT282) and top 9% (OVCAR8) of all bidirectional gene pairs genome-wide top 1% / top 9% percentile
- ▲ FOXM1 and RHNO1 mRNA are significantly elevated in HGSC tumors/cell lines versus normal Fallopian tube/FTE-OSE tissue and cells p<0.0001
- – FOXM1/RHNO1 expression ratio is elevated in cancer vs. normal tissue but becomes similar after normalization to the proliferation marker MKI67
- – The F/R-BDP CpG island is fully hypomethylated in both normal and cancer tissues
- ▲ 5 of 11 patients show coordinated upregulation of both FOXM1 and RHNO1 in recurrent versus primary HGSC 45% (5/11)
- count n=579 (TCGA HGSC samples analyzed by GISTIC for 12p13.33 copy number amplification)
- count N=157 (TCGA HGSC samples with RNA-seq vs. copy number data)
- count N=23 (CCLE HGSC cell lines with microarray expression vs. copy number data)
- pvalue p<0.0001 (FOXM1 and RHNO1 expression elevated in tumor vs. normal tissue (t-tests) across primary, metastatic, and recurrent categories)
- other top 1% percentile (Rank of FOXM1/RHNO1 co-expression among bidirectional gene pairs in FT282 scRNA-seq data)
- other top 9% percentile (Rank of FOXM1/RHNO1 co-expression among bidirectional gene pairs in OVCAR8 scRNA-seq data)
- count 5/11 (45%) (Patients showing coordinated FOXM1/RHNO1 upregulation at HGSC recurrence)
- other ~150 bp (Intergenic span between FOXM1 and RHNO1 transcription start sites (F/R-BDP))
Statistical methods review
Model: opusA neutral, descriptive read of the statistical approach — what was done, and (for shared learning, not as criticism) what could also have been done.
This is an observational/correlational genomics and cell-biology study that integrates public datasets (TCGA, CCLE, GTEx, ENCODE) with laboratory assays (RT-qPCR, scRNA-seq, western blot, luciferase reporters). Associations between FOXM1/RHNO1 expression and copy number were assessed by ANOVA with a post-test for linear trend, gene co-expression by Spearman and Pearson correlation, and group differences (normal vs. tumor, cell line vs. cell line) by t-tests and Mann–Whitney tests. Copy number amplification significance was determined by GISTIC with an FDR q-value threshold, and results were generally reported with sample sizes, correlation coefficients/p-values, and group medians.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| GISTIC (recurrent copy number amplification, FDR q-value) | Figure 1A, 12p13.33 amplicon in TCGA HGSC | n = 579 | not stated |
| ANOVA with post-test for linear trend | Figure 3A,B, FOXM1/RHNO1 expression vs. GISTIC copy number (TCGA N=157; CCLE N=23) | N = 157 (TCGA); N = 23 (CCLE) | not stated |
| Spearman correlation | Figure 4A-D and Figure 8A,B, FOXM1 vs. RHNO1 expression in tissues/cells/single cells | sample number reported per panel, exact n null here | not stated |
| Mann–Whitney U test | Figure 4E, FOXM1/RHNO1 expression FT282 vs. OVCAR8 (scRNA-seq) | — | not stated |
| Pearson correlation | Figure 5, distribution of co-expression coefficients across bidirectional gene pairs (n = 2172) | n = 2172 gene pairs | not stated |
| t-test | Figure 6A,B (GTEx/TCGA normal vs. tumor) and Figure 7A,B (FTE/OSE vs. HGSC) | group sample numbers reported per panel | not stated |
-
Multiple two-group comparisons (e.g., normal vs. primary/metastatic/recurrent tumors) were each evaluated with t-tests.↳ Could also: A single one-way ANOVA followed by a post-hoc test (e.g., Tukey HSD or Dunnett's) across all groups simultaneously. — A single omnibus test with post-hoc correction also controls the family-wise error rate across the related comparisons in one analysis.
-
Group differences between tumor and normal expression were assessed with t-tests.↳ Could also: A non-parametric Mann–Whitney/Wilcoxon test, as was used elsewhere in the paper for scRNA-seq data. — For RNA-seq expression distributions that can be skewed, a rank-based test makes fewer distributional assumptions and is sometimes preferred for consistency.
-
Many panels report p-values via asterisk thresholds (e.g., *<0.05 ... ****<0.0001).↳ Could also: Reporting exact p-values alongside effect sizes for every comparison. — Exact p-values convey the precise strength of evidence and aid meta-analysis and reproducibility.
-
Co-expression was summarized with Spearman and Pearson correlation coefficients and p-values.↳ Could also: Adding 95% confidence intervals around the correlation coefficients. — A CI conveys the precision of the estimated association in addition to its point value and significance.
-
Central tendency in several panels was shown as group medians.↳ Could also: Reporting a paired dispersion measure such as IQR, or SD/95% CI where means are used. — Pairing a spread or interval statistic with the central value conveys the variability of the data, which is especially informative for smaller samples.
-
Multiplicity correction was applied for the genome-wide GISTIC analysis but not stated for the broader set of pairwise tests across figures.↳ Could also: Applying a Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction across the family of expression-comparison tests as well. — A shared correction across the related tests would also control the overall false-discovery rate when many comparisons are reported together.
Result convergence & founder nodes
Findings this paper shares with others that ran a comparable experiment. A node’s strength is how many independent papers report it (replication breadth) — not how often it is cited, so a heavily-replicated but under-cited founder still stands out.
-
FOXM1 and RHNO1 transcription start sites are separated by approximately 150 bp, defining a compact bidirectional promoter shared across normal and HGSC cellsother human fte 2021×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
The FOXM1/RHNO1 bidirectional promoter CpG island is fully hypomethylated in both normal and cancer tissues including HGSC, ruling out methylation-based silencingother human hgsc none 2021×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
FOXM1 and RHNO1 show coordinated upregulation in 45% of patient-matched HGSC cases at recurrence, but overall expression is not significantly changed between primary and recurrent diseaseqPCR human hgsc mixed 2021×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
FOXM1 and RHNO1 are significantly elevated in HGSC compared to normal Fallopian tube epitheliumRNA-seq human hgsc up 2021×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
FOXM1 and RHNO1 are overexpressed in primary, metastatic, and recurrent tumors versus normal tissues across TCGA pan-cancerRNA-seq human pan-cancer up 2021×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
-
FOXM1/RHNO1 co-expression ranks in the top 1% of all bidirectional gene pairs in FT282 immortalized fallopian tube epithelial cells at single-cell resolutionscRNA-seq ft282 up 2021×1papers★ This paper is the founder (earliest)
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.
- Topological signatures in regulatory network e... L1 94/100
- Generic injuries are sufficient to induce ecto... L1 100/100
- Competitive binding of STATs to receptor phosp... L1 89/100
- Tbx5 drives <i>Aldh1a2</i> expression to regul... L1 84/100
- Disrupted PGR-B and ESR1 signaling underlies d... L1 78/100
- Firefly genomes illuminate parallel origins of... L1 93/100
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — pmid-33890574
Paper: Barger CJ, Chee L, Albahrani M, et al. Co-regulation and function of FOXM1/RHNO1 bidirectional genes in cancer. eLife 2021;10:e55070. PMID 33890574, PMCID PMC8104967, DOI 10.7554/eLife.55070.
Metadata correction (important)
The room metadata listed code_url = github.com/Vivianstats/scImpute and
data_accession = GSE68379. After reading the paper:
- scImpute is a text-mining FALSE POSITIVE. The string "scImpute" / that GitHub repo is never mentioned in the paper. scImpute is a single-cell imputation tool, irrelevant to this bidirectional-gene study. The paper ships no authors' analysis-code repository at all.
- GSE68379 is real but minor: it is the GDSC1000 DNA-methylation (Illumina 450K) dataset, used only for a supplementary methylation view of the FOXM1/RHNO1 promoter — not the central result.
- The authors' own scRNA-seq is deposited as GSE150864 (FT282, OVCAR8).
Per brief rule P16, applying a third-party/standard pipeline to the paper's own (public) data is an equally valid reproduction. We therefore reproduce the paper's central computational claim from the same public data sources the paper cites, rather than the bogus scImpute link.
In scope (pipeline-derived, public data → attempted)
The paper's core quantitative computational result is the FOXM1 vs RHNO1 mRNA co-expression Spearman correlation tabulated across many datasets in Supplementary File 1. The rows derived from public reference recomputes are directly reproducible:
| Row | reported Spearman r | N | data source (paper) | reproducible from |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| GTEx normal tissues | 0.595 | 9190 | Vivian 2017 (TOIL) | UCSC Xena TOIL |
| TCGA pan-cancer | 0.575 | 7814 | Vivian 2017 (TOIL) | UCSC Xena TOIL |
| TCGA HGSC/OV tissues | 0.621 | 263 | TCGA 2011 | UCSC Xena TOIL (TCGA-OV) |
| CCLE pan-cancer RNA-seq | 0.657 | 1072 | CCLE/GDSC 2015 | DepMap/CCLE (optional) |
Pipeline: download FOXM1 (ENSG00000111206) + RHNO1 (ENSG00000171792)
expression from the UCSC Xena TOIL recompute (TcgaTargetGtex_rsem_gene_tpm,
Vivian et al 2017 — the exact source the paper cites for GTEx/TCGA), split by
cohort via the TOIL phenotype table, compute scipy.stats.spearmanr. Spearman is
rank-based, so the hub's log2(tpm+0.001) transform does not affect the result.
Out of scope (not attempted, why)
- Wet-lab rows of Supp File 1 (HGSC tissues RT-qPCR r=0.819; cell-line panel r=0.779): authors' own qPCR measurements, not a public pipeline.
- scRNA-seq rows (FT282 r=0.583, OVCAR8 r=0.305; Fig 4C/D, Fig 5 BDG ranking): reproducible in principle from GSE150864 but require full single-cell processing — deferred as the hard ~20%.
- ChIP-seq/luciferase/CRISPR/methylation-functional experiments: wet-lab.
- GSE68379 GDSC methylation supplementary view: minor, not a headline number.
Why this is honest 1:1
We use the same public reference datasets (TOIL/Vivian 2017) the paper cites, the same statistic (Spearman), and the same two genes; we compare our recomputed r against the paper's reported r per cohort. Exact N may differ by reference version (noted per row); the correlation coefficient is the claim under test.
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 — strong, significant positive FOXM1/RHNO1 co-expression — reproduces cleanly from the same cited public TOIL source, with reproduced r=0.639/0.629/0.720 vs reported 0.595/0.575/0.621, same sign and p~0 throughout; no fabrication signal. Deviations are on our/data-version side: per-cohort N differs (current TOIL release; we kept all OV samples vs the paper's likely primary-tumor-only N=263), which plausibly explains the ~0.04-0.10 r gaps. The registry code link is an irrelevant text-mining false positive, so reproduction used a standard Spearman pipeline on the paper's own public data. Wet-lab, single-cell and functional rows were not attempted, so this is a solid-but-partial reproduction of the central claim.
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 [email protected].
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.