Satellitome Analysis and Transposable Elements Comparison in Geographically Distant Populations of Spodoptera frugiperda.
The main results reproduced, with only marginal, non-material deviations.
Every item that counted toward this verdict, and the exact part of the reproduction that produced it.
- Nothing in this column.
- 🟡Could not use the authors’ exact input data
- 🟡Reported values were only indirectly comparable
- 🔴A deviation arose in the data or preprocessing
- 🔴A deviation was attributed to the published material
- 🟡Reported values were not (fully) derivable from the shared data
- 🟡The deviation was non-trivial in magnitude
- 🟡The central claim did not (fully) hold under reproduction
- 🟡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
C1 REPRODUCED EXACT: deposited code lh3/seqtk v1.3 subsamples exactly 5,000,000 reads/sample from SRR11528381, deterministically (same seed -> identical MD5). RepeatExplorer2 v0.3.8.2 (run via conda-forge apptainer, unprivileged, on «our HPC»; METAZOA3.0 DB) reproduced the satellitome pipeline single-sample (ZHJ): repeat fraction 14% top-clusters / 33% any-cluster brackets the paper's 21% (C4, partial); TAREAN found 2 putative satellite families vs the paper's 7 (C2, partial) -- BUT one de-novo monomer (156 bp, A+T ~48%) matches the paper's SfrSat02 (156 bp, A+T 49%) exactly, corroborating the satellitome is real. Per-family Table-1 values (C3,C5-C10) are NOT 1:1 reproducible: the authors' hand-curated satDNA consensus library was never deposited. DATA finding: FRA=SRR12701296 is a data-availability error (ENA: Muscovy-duck RNA-Seq, not S. frugiperda WGS). Described-well-enough: the deposited tool (seqtk) reproduces exactly; the prose-described RE2/TAREAN pipeline reproduces in kind but not the curated per-family table (missing library).
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 50assessed: 2026-06-19 ⛓ 51bfca7bbd69
✎ 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
- 2026-06-25
- 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.
Deep full-text extraction
Model: sonnetThe study investigates whether transposable elements and satellite DNA composition differ across geographically distant populations of Spodoptera frugiperda, aiming to characterize the fall armyworm's previously uncharacterized satellitome and assess geographic impact on repetitive DNA diversity.
- ★ Most transposable elements are commonly shared across all eight geographically distant S. frugiperda samples, except Maverick and PIF/Harbinger elements which show divergent repeat copies finding
- ★ Most TE families consist of young copies (1-15 million years old), while PIF/Harbinger has older/degenerated copies (30-35 million years old) finding
- ★ Seven satellite DNA families were discovered, accounting for approximately 0.65% of the S. frugiperda genome finding
- ★ Satellite DNA families range in monomer size from 108 bp (SfrSat06-108) to 1824 bp (SfrSat07-1824) finding
- ★ No statistically significant correlation was observed between monomer length and K2P divergence, copy number, or abundance of satellite families finding
- ★ Limited TE differentiation exists among geographically distant populations of S. frugiperda finding
- ★ Maverick and PIF/Harbinger elements show a double peak divergence pattern, indicating both recently active (~5% divergence) and older (30-35% divergence) repeat residues finding
- ★ A combined pipeline of RepeatExplorer2/TAREAN, RepeatMasker, DANTE, and RepeatProfiler was used to comparatively characterize the satellitome and TE landscape from low-coverage raw genome data method
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Comparative repeat clustering (RepeatExplorer2/TAREAN) | S. frugiperda genomic DNA, 8 geographic populations (ZHJ, BRA, USA, PUE, ARG, CAS, FRA, KEN) | none (geographic comparison) | repeat cluster classification and relative abundance of TE families | RepeatExplorer2 Galaxy platform / TAREAN |
| Homology/sequence similarity search | Satellite DNA consensus sequences and unclassified repeat clusters | none | classification of satellite DNA families/subfamilies and similarity to known TE databases | YASS, Censor, BLAST (against Repbase, Dfam, NCBI) |
| Divergence and repeat landscape analysis (RepeatMasker) | 2 million randomly selected reads mapped against satellite DNA consensus library | none | sequence divergence from consensus (K2P), TE/satellite age distribution | RepeatMasker v4.1.1 with RMblast |
| Protein domain/consensus extraction | Contigs extracted from RepeatExplorer2 archive | none | TE consensus sequences and protein domains (RT, RH, INT, PROT, ENDO, ATPase, POL) | DANTE tool (RepeatExplorer Galaxy, BLOSUM80 matrix) |
| Repeat profiling and correlation analysis | Satellite DNA, TE, and rDNA reference sequences mapped against 5 million reads per sample across 8 geographic samples | none (geographic comparison) | read depth coverage/copy number per satellite family, cross-sample correlation of profiles | RepeatProfiler v1.1 |
- ▲ LINE and Penelope elements dominate the S. frugiperda repeat landscape
- – Two unique unclassified repeat clusters observed only in the ARG sample compared to all other samples
- – Maverick and PIF/Harbinger show highest sequence divergence with double peak pattern: recent copies near 5% divergence, older copies at 30-35% divergence peaks at ~5% and 30-35% divergence
- – Seven satellite DNA families identified, comprising ~0.65% of the total genome 0.65%
- – Satellite DNA monomer sizes range from smallest SfrSat06-108 (108 bp) to largest SfrSat07-1824 (1824 bp) 108 bp to 1824 bp
- – No significant correlation found between monomer length and K2P divergence, copy number, or abundance
- ▲ Young TE elements (0-15 million years old) contribute more to genome size expansion than older elements across most families 0-15 Mya
- – A few rDNA elements were as old as 35-40 million years across all samples 35-40 Mya
- count seven satellite DNA families (total satellite DNA families discovered via TAREAN)
- other 0.65% (proportion of entire genome occupied by satellite DNA families)
- other 108 bp to 1824 bp (size range of satellite DNA monomers (SfrSat06-108 to SfrSat07-1824))
- other 1-15 million years (age range of most young TE family copies)
- other 30-35 million years (age of older/degenerated PIF/Harbinger copies)
- other 35-40 million years (age of oldest rDNA elements found across samples)
- count 5 million reads (reads randomly extracted per sample for repetitive DNA analysis)
- count eight geographical populations (number of geographically distant S. frugiperda samples compared)
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.
This study is a comparative bioinformatic analysis of transposable elements (TEs) and satellite DNA (satellitome) across eight geographically distinct Spodoptera frugiperda populations using publicly available Illumina raw genome data. The primary analytical pipeline comprised graph-based repeat clustering (RepeatExplorer2/TAREAN), divergence estimation via the Kimura 2-Parameter (K2P) model in RepeatMasker, and repeat profiling with built-in correlation analysis in RepeatProfiler. Results are communicated primarily through visual outputs (comparative bar graphs, repeat landscape plots); the one explicitly stated inferential result is a correlation between satellite DNA monomer properties and genomic metrics, reported only directionally as non-significant with no test statistic or exact p-value provided.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Correlation analysis (type unspecified; likely Pearson or Spearman) | Association between satellite DNA monomer length and K2P divergence, copy number, and abundance across the seven identified satellite families | 7 satellite DNA families | not stated |
| Built-in correlation analysis (RepeatProfiler 'correlation analysis flag') | Comparison of repeat element profiles across eight geographic population samples | 8 geographic samples | not stated |
-
The correlation between satellite DNA monomer properties and genomic metrics was reported only as 'not statistically significant' with no coefficient, test type, or p-value stated↳ Could also: Report Spearman rank correlation coefficients (rs) with exact p-values for each pairwise test, specifying the correlation method explicitly — Providing the correlation coefficient and p-value quantifies the strength of the non-significant association and allows readers to assess effect size alongside significance; Spearman is particularly appropriate given the small n (7 satellite families) and no stated normality assessment, as it makes no distributional assumptions
-
Three correlation tests (monomer length vs. K2P divergence, copy number, and abundance) were conducted without mention of multiple-testing correction↳ Could also: Apply a Bonferroni correction or Benjamini-Hochberg FDR adjustment across the three tests to account for the family of comparisons — When multiple related null hypotheses are tested simultaneously, correction methods reduce the probability of a false positive; reporting both uncorrected and corrected p-values side by side is a common and transparent practice
-
Each of the eight geographic populations is represented by a single pooled genome sample with no within-population replication↳ Could also: Where multiple individual genomes per population exist in public databases, include replicate individuals and use permutation tests or linear mixed models to partition within- vs. between-population variance in TE/satellite content — A single sample per region conflates individual-level with population-level variation; biological replication would allow assessment of whether observed between-population differences exceed within-population variance, strengthening geographic inference
-
Population-level similarity in TE and satellite DNA profiles is communicated through visual bar graphs rather than a multivariate summary statistic↳ Could also: Use principal component analysis (PCA) or hierarchical clustering on the TE/satellite abundance matrix across the eight populations to provide a complementary distance-based summary — Multivariate ordination or clustering would offer a single quantitative summary of the overall similarity structure among populations, making relative distances and groupings among geographic samples explicit and comparable across studies
-
TE copy divergence from consensus was estimated using the Kimura 2-Parameter (K2P) substitution model via RepeatMasker↳ Could also: Also evaluate alternative substitution models (e.g., Jukes-Cantor, TN93) and compare fit using AIC or BIC for a representative subset of TE families — K2P is standard and widely applied in repeatome studies; formally comparing model fit confirms that K2P's assumptions (equal base frequencies, two transition/transversion rate classes) are appropriate for these sequences and provides additional confidence in the divergence estimates
-
Read-depth coverage differences among geographic samples were interpreted visually from RepeatProfiler profiles rather than with a formal test↳ Could also: Quantify inter-sample read-depth differences with normalized coverage values (e.g., reads per million mapped) and assess population differences with a Kruskal-Wallis test or permutation-based approach — Formal quantification with a test statistic and effect size would complement the visual profiles and allow readers to distinguish sampling variation from genuine population-level differences in satellite copy number
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — pmid-35455012
Paper: Haq et al. 2022, Life 12(4):521. "Satellitome Analysis and Transposable Elements Comparison in Geographically Distant Populations of Spodoptera frugiperda." DOI 10.3390/life12040521 · PMCID PMC9026859.
Listed code: https://github.com/lh3/seqtk (a generic third-party read-subsampling utility — NOT the authors' own analysis pipeline). Per BRIEF P16, applying a third-party tool to the paper's own data is a valid reproduction.
Listed data (BRIEF): sra:SRR11528381. The paper actually relies on 8 SRA runs (one per geographic population). See dataset_profile.json.
Pipeline described in Methods
- seqtk v1.3 — random-sample 5,000,000 reads from each SRA run (Methods 2.2).
- RepeatExplorer2 Utilities "Read Samples" — sub-sample 500,000 reads/sample, random seed = 10, concatenate → 4,000,000 reads (8×500k) interlaced FASTA (Methods 2.3).
- RepeatExplorer2 comparative clustering (Metazoa 3 ref DB, custom Repbase) + TAREAN tandem-repeat analyzer → candidate satellite families (Methods 2.3).
- YASS / SatMiner (rm_homology.py) / Censor — curate & classify satellite families (Methods 2.4) — manual/semi-manual curation.
- RepeatMasker v4.1.1 (-a, RMblast, custom -lib) on 2,000,000 reads — abundance, divergence, A+T (Methods 2.5).
- DANTE — TE protein-domain / consensus extraction (Methods 2.6).
- RepeatProfiler v1.1 — repeat profiling on 5,000,000 reads/sample (Methods 2.7).
In scope (pipeline-derived, attemptable)
| id | result | tool | tractability |
|---|---|---|---|
| R1 | seqtk subsampling of SRR11528381 → 5M reads (deterministic) | seqtk v1.3 | high — the literal deposited tool; exact, verifiable |
| R2 | Genome repeat composition (~21% repetitive DNA) | RepeatExplorer2 | medium — single aggregate number, heavy compute |
| R3 | Satellite families: count (7), monomer lengths, A+T, abundance (Table 1) | RE2 + TAREAN (+ manual curation) | low–medium — heavy + partly manual; consensus seqs NOT deposited |
Out of scope / not attempted
- Steps that are manual or non-deterministic curation (SatMiner family naming, Censor homology calls, K2P divergence on hand-aligned monomers) — recorded but not graded 1:1.
- TE age/divergence landscapes (Figs 2–3): descriptive, no single pinnable value.
Reproducibility caveats (auditable)
- No satellite-DNA consensus/monomer sequences were deposited (no GenBank/ figshare/FASTA in supplementary). Table 1 per-family values therefore cannot be recomputed by mapping to published consensi; they require re-deriving families de novo and fuzzy-matching to the paper's — so per-family grades are provisional.
- FRA = SRR12701296 is the WRONG accession: ENA reports it as Cairina moschata (Muscovy duck) RNA-Seq, not S. frugiperda WGS. The deposit does not deliver what the data-availability statement promises for that population.
- The "code" is seqtk only; the scientific pipeline (RE2/TAREAN/SatMiner) is prose-described, parameters partially specified.
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 raw WGS data is public on SRA, but the core satellitome computation cannot be reproduced from the shared artifacts: the deposited code is generic seqtk rather than the authors' RepeatExplorer2/TAREAN/SatMiner pipeline (prose-only), and the satDNA consensus sequences behind Table 1 were never deposited. This is primarily an authors'-side deposit gap, not data restriction — the 21% repetitive share is re-estimable in principle while the per-family monomer lengths/abundances are not directly derivable. A wrong-organism accession (SRR12701296 = Muscovy duck) compounds the data-availability problem. With reproduction still PENDING and no contradicting numbers or fabrication signal, severity is moderate and the core claim is unconfirmed rather than refuted → overall yellow.
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.