The focal adhesion protein β-parvin controls cardiomyocyte shape and sarcomere assembly in response to mechanical load.
Part of the results reproduced; minor but material deviations remained.
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
▸Reproduction agent’s raw note
DROP (non_pipeline). 'The focal adhesion protein beta-parvin controls cardiomyocyte shape and sarcomere assembly in response to mechanical load' (Thievessen et al., Current Biology 32(14):3033-3047.e9, 2022) is a wet-lab cell-biology + in-vivo physiology study. Its quantitative results are produced by manual/semi-automated fluorescence-image morphometry (cardiomyocyte length/width/area, elongation index, protrusion area, serial sarcomere counts), traction-force microscopy, biochemical pull-down/immunoprecipitation, and mouse exercise physiology (echocardiography, heart-weight/body-weight ratios) - NOT a bioinformatic pipeline. No high-throughput omics experiment exists (no RNA-seq / no mass-spectrometry proteomics). Exhaustive search found NO deposited public dataset and NO code repository: EuropePMC text-mined accessions = none; PRIDE (parvin / Thievessen / Kruger / cardiomyocyte) = 0; GEO = 0; Crossref dataset relations = empty; no bioRxiv preprint; enrichment found no code_url and no data_accession. A 2025 same-lab follow-up (Frontiers Cell Dev Biol 2025.1569185) uses the identical manual-imaging + biochemistry methods and states data are available from the corresponding author on request, with nothing deposited. There is therefore no public data + code artifact to run a pipeline against, and the underlying results are out of scope (wet-lab/manual/instrument readouts). NOT ATTEMPTED: nothing was run on «our HPC» - there was no in-scope pipeline-derived result and no obtainable input data. Honest drop; no fabrication. LIMITATION: the verbatim STAR Methods 'Data and code availability' statement could not be machine-retrieved (ScienceDirect/Cell.com block automated fetch and serve a JS-only shell; Elsevier full-text API requires an institutional key; article is open-archive/BRONZE but body not retrievable headlessly). The drop rests on convergent negative evidence from 5 independent databases + the abstract + the corroborating 2025 sibling paper, not on the STAR statement.
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 assessmentassessed: 2026-06-18 ⛓ 88fc81a42e51
✎ 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
- 2026-06-18
- 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.
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — pmid-35688156
Title: The focal adhesion protein β-parvin controls cardiomyocyte shape and sarcomere assembly in response to mechanical load. Authors: Thievessen I, Suhr F, Vergarajauregui S, Böttcher RT, Brixius K, Rosenberger G, Dewald O, Fleischmann BK, Ghanem A, Krüger M, Engel FB, Fabry B, Bloch W, Fässler R. Venue: Current Biology 32(14):3033–3047.e9, 25 July 2022. DOI: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.05.047 · PMID: 35688156 · open archive (BRONZE OA).
Verdict: OUT OF SCOPE → DROP (non_pipeline)
This paper contains no pipeline-derived computational result that can be reproduced from a public data + code artifact. Every reported quantitative value comes from wet-lab assays or manual/semi-automated image measurement.
Reported result classes and their disposition
| Result class (figures) | How produced | In scope? |
|---|---|---|
| Cardiomyocyte shape: length, width, area, elongation/aspect ratio | Fluorescence imaging + manual/semi-automated morphometry | No — manual imaging, raw images not deposited |
| Cell protrusion / membrane ruffle formation | Live/fixed imaging, manual quantification | No — wet-lab imaging |
| Serial sarcomere assembly (newly synthesized sarcomere counts) | Immunofluorescence, manual counting | No — wet-lab imaging |
| Mechanical loading (cyclic uni-axial stretch; stiff substrates) | Cell-stretch device + imaging | No — wet-lab apparatus |
| Traction forces | Traction-force microscopy (bead-displacement) | No — instrument + lab-specific analysis; bead images not deposited |
| β-parvin ↔ α/β-PIX ↔ Rac1 signalling | Pull-down, co-IP, Rac1-GTP assays (biochemistry) | No — wet-lab biochemistry |
| Exercise-induced cardiac hypertrophy in mice | Mouse running, echocardiography, heart-weight/body-weight | No — in-vivo physiology |
There is no RNA-seq, no mass-spectrometry proteomics, no microarray, no ATAC, no sequencing of any kind in this study.
Code & data availability (searched exhaustively)
- Code repository: none. Scaffold enrichment resolved no
code_url; no GitHub/GitLab/Zenodo code link in the record. - Data accession: none.
- EuropePMC core record
accessionTypeList=None(no text-mined accession). - PRIDE search ("parvin", "Thievessen", "Kruger cardiomyocyte", "NRVC proteome", "cardiomyocyte stretch proteome") → 0 projects.
- NCBI GEO ("beta-parvin cardiomyocyte") → 0 records.
- Crossref
relationfor the DOI → empty (no associated dataset). - No bioRxiv preprint.
- EuropePMC core record
- Corroboration: 2025 same-lab follow-up (Vergarajauregui/… Frontiers Cell Dev Biol, 10.3389/fcell.2025.1569185) uses the identical manual confocal morphometry + Western/IP/pull-down methods and deposits nothing — data "available from the corresponding author" on request.
Why not even a "third-party tool on the paper's data" reproduction (P16)
That route requires the paper's own data to be publicly obtainable. Here the underlying raw data (microscopy images, traction-force bead stacks, mouse measurements) is not deposited — it is available on request only. With no public input data and no high-throughput modality, there is nothing for a third-party pipeline to run on.
Limitation (honesty)
The verbatim Cell Press STAR Methods "Data and code availability" bullets could not be machine-retrieved: ScienceDirect/Cell.com return a JS-only shell to headless fetchers (HTTP 403 on WebFetch), and the Elsevier full-text API needs an institutional key. The drop therefore rests on convergent negative evidence from five independent databases + the abstract + the corroborating 2025 sibling paper, not on the STAR statement itself. This does not change the conclusion (no omics modality exists to deposit), but is recorded so a human can verify the STAR bullets directly if desired.
No individual results have been recorded for this entry yet.
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.
This is an honest DROP (non_pipeline): Thievessen et al. (Current Biology 2022) is a wet-lab cell-biology and in-vivo mouse-physiology study whose numbers come from manual fluorescence morphometry, traction-force microscopy, biochemistry and exercise echocardiography — not a computational pipeline. No public dataset and no code exist (PRIDE/GEO/Crossref/bioRxiv all negative), so the reported values (C1–C6) cannot be compared 1:1. The blocker is data availability / scope on our side, not an authors' defect or fabrication, so q1/q2 are red (unavailable, not comparable) while q5/q7/q8 stay yellow rather than red to avoid implying a substantive discrepancy that was never demonstrated.
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.