Different Intestinal Microbiota with Growth Stages of Three-Breed Hybrid Pig.
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
- 🟡Could not use the authors’ exact input data
- 🟡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
REPRODUCED (provisional, 1:1 on the paper's biological conclusions). Applied a faithful QIIME2 2024.10 vsearch de-novo 97% OTU pipeline (== the paper's USEARCH UPARSE) + q2-feature-classifier (the listed repo) vs Greengenes 13.8 + LEfSe to the paper's own SRA data (PRJNA795214, 15 V3-V4 runs) on «our HPC» SLURM. Grades: 2 exact, 9 within-tol, 4 partial, 1 mismatch. Strong agreement: total high-quality seqs 900,411 vs 885,695 (+1.7%); total OTUs 13,299 vs 14,470 (-8%); phylum composition Firmicutes 79.1/84.1/82.8% and Bacteroidetes 15.6/11.8/7.0% match reported 78.7/83.9/82.5% and 16.3/12.1/7.3% within ~1pp (EXACT); dominant genera Lactobacillus/Streptococcus/Prevotella ~exact; alpha-diversity ordering TM>FM>SM exact for all 5 metrics; beta-diversity ANOSIM clustering significant; ALL THREE LEfSe biomarkers (Streptococcaceae->SM, Oscillospira->TM, SMB53->FM) recovered with the same group assignment as Fig 4c. Differences: SM-group OTU richness & shared-OTU counts run higher; SMB_53 genus under-classifies (magnitude mismatch, direction kept); Chao1/Shannon magnitudes differ - all explained by USEARCH7.1->vsearch OTU-definition + classifier differences, none indicating fabrication. NOT attempted: body-weight measurements (wet-lab, out of scope). FLAG: paper says NovaSeq but SRA metadata says HiSeq 2500 (reporting inconsistency).
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 ⛓ 4ff4da6e0c40
✎ 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
- 2026-06-26
- 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 how the composition and diversity of intestinal microbiota in three-breed (Duroc×Landrace×Yorkshire) hybrid pigs change across three growth stages (60, 120, and 180 days of age).
- ★ The composition and relative abundance of intestinal microbiota in three-breed hybrid pigs differ significantly across growth stages (60, 120, 180 days) finding
- ★ Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, Spirochaetes, Proteobacteria, and Actinobacteria are the dominant phyla in the pig gut microbiota finding
- ★ Lactobacillus, Streptococcus, SMB53, Oscillospira, and Prevotella are the dominant genera in the pig gut microbiota finding
- ★ Intestinal microbial diversity (Chao1, Observed Species) decreases as pigs age and gain body weight finding
- ★ The intestinal microbial composition of three-breed hybrid pigs is relatively stable during the fattening period but remains in a state of dynamic change finding
- ★ LEfSe identified group-specific biomarker taxa: Streptococcaceae (180d/SM group), SMB53 (120d/FM group), and Oscillospira (60d/TM group) finding
- 16S rRNA gene (V3-V4 region) sequencing via Illumina NovaSeq combined with QIIME2/Usearch OTU clustering was used to characterize fecal microbiota method
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16S rRNA gene sequencing (V3-V4 region) | fecal samples from three-breed hybrid pigs (Duroc×Landrace×Yorkshire), 5 pigs per group at 60/120/180 days of age | none (natural growth stage/age comparison) | relative abundance of bacterial taxa at phylum and genus levels | Illumina NovaSeq |
| OTU clustering and taxonomic classification | same fecal samples | none | OTU counts and taxonomic assignment (97% similarity, Greengenes database) | Usearch v7.1, QIIME2 |
| Alpha diversity analysis (Chao1, Observed Species, Shannon, Simpson, Good's coverage) | same fecal samples | none | within-sample species richness, diversity, and coverage indices | QIIME software 2019.4 |
| Beta diversity analysis (PCoA, NMDS) | same fecal samples | none | between-sample community distance/clustering | QIIME software 2019.4 |
| LEfSe (LDA effect size) | same fecal samples | none | group-specific biomarker taxa | — |
- – Firmicutes abundance increased then decreased across 60/120/180 days (78.73%→83.91%→82.51%) 78.73% to 83.91% to 82.51%
- ▼ Bacteroidetes abundance decreased gradually across 60/120/180 days 16.33% to 12.11% to 7.29%
- – Lactobacillus and SMB53 abundance increased then decreased across growth stages Lactobacillus 21.22%→25.02%→11.08%; SMB53 2.15%→8.61%→5.60%
- ▲ Streptococcus abundance increased gradually with age, becoming dominant at 180 days 3.44% to 5.28% to 21.98%
- ▼ Prevotella abundance decreased gradually with age 5.07% to 1.83%
- ▼ Chao1 and Observed Species diversity indices significantly decreased with increasing age/body weight
- ▼ Total unique OTUs decreased with age: TM (60d) 6547, FM (120d) 5440, SM (180d) 4387, with 952 shared across groups 45.25%, 37.60%, 30.32%, 6.58% shared
- – LEfSe identified Streptococcaceae, SMB53, and Oscillospira as biomarkers of the 180d, 120d, and 60d groups respectively
- count 885695 high-quality sequences (total quality-controlled sequences across all samples)
- count 14470 total OTUs (total OTUs identified across all three groups)
- mean 0.9859 (range 0.9793-0.9912) (average Good's coverage index across samples)
- mean 154.592 ± 4.245 kg (average body weight, 180-day (SM) group)
- mean 102.416 ± 2.379 kg (average body weight, 120-day (FM) group)
- mean 29.386 ± 0.513 kg (average body weight, 60-day (TM) group)
- pvalue P < 0.01 or P < 0.05 (six of the top 10 genera showed significant differences across growth stages)
- count 22 phyla, 46 classes, 84 orders, 147 families, 287 genera (total taxonomic breadth of detected intestinal microbiota)
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 intestinal microbiota (16S rRNA, V3-V4 region) among three groups of pigs sampled at 60, 120, and 180 days of age (n=5 pigs/group, 15 samples total). Group differences in diversity indices, taxon abundances, and other measured variables were tested with a one-way ANOVA for normally distributed data and the Mann-Whitney U test for non-normally distributed data, with diversity indices additionally described as compared by t-test; biomarker taxa were identified with LEfSe (Kruskal-Wallis/Wilcoxon rank-sum combined with LDA). Results were reported as mean ± standard deviation with significance thresholds of P<0.05 and P<0.01.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) | differences among normally distributed data groups (e.g., body weight, diversity indices, taxon abundances across the three age groups) | 5 pigs per group (15 samples total) | not stated |
| Mann-Whitney U test | differences among non-normally distributed data groups | 5 pigs per group (15 samples total) | not stated |
| Student's t-test | comparison of alpha-diversity indices (Chao1, Observed Species, Shannon, Simpson) between groups (Figure 2, Table 1) | 5 pigs per group | not stated |
| Kruskal-Wallis test and Wilcoxon rank-sum test (within LEfSe, combined with LDA) | identification of differentially abundant marker taxa across the three groups (Figure 4(c)) | 5 samples per group | not stated |
-
Group differences (including three-group comparisons such as diversity indices across 60/120/180 days) were assessed with t-tests and/or Mann-Whitney U tests applied pairwise.↳ Could also: A one-way ANOVA (for normal data) or Kruskal-Wallis test (for non-normal data) across all three groups, followed by a post-hoc test such as Tukey HSD or Dunn's test — Using an omnibus test across all three groups first, followed by a post-hoc procedure, is a standard way to control the family-wise error rate that arises from multiple pairwise comparisons among the same groups.
-
Many taxa (22 phyla, 287 genera) and multiple diversity metrics were compared across groups without a stated multiple-testing correction.↳ Could also: A false discovery rate correction such as Benjamini-Hochberg, or microbiome-specific differential abundance tools (e.g., DESeq2, ANCOM-BC, MaAsLin2) that incorporate multiplicity control — When testing many taxa simultaneously, FDR-controlling methods are commonly used in microbiome studies to keep the expected proportion of false positives low while retaining power.
-
Beta-diversity differences among groups were visualized with PCoA and NMDS and described qualitatively as showing within-group clustering.↳ Could also: A formal statistical test such as PERMANOVA (e.g., adonis in vegan) or ANOSIM on the distance matrix — These tests provide a p-value and effect size (e.g., R²) for whether community composition differs between groups, complementing the ordination plots with a quantitative assessment.
-
Variability was reported as mean ± standard deviation.↳ Could also: Reporting a 95% confidence interval alongside or instead of SD — A confidence interval directly conveys the precision of the estimated mean, which can be particularly informative with small group sizes such as n=5.
-
Statistical significance was reported using thresholds (P<0.05, P<0.01) rather than exact p-values.↳ Could also: Reporting exact p-values for each comparison — Exact p-values allow readers to judge the strength of evidence more precisely and support meta-analysis or re-analysis by future researchers.
-
Differences in taxon abundance were reported as significant/non-significant without accompanying effect size measures.↳ Could also: Reporting effect sizes (e.g., fold-change with confidence interval, or standardized mean difference) — Effect sizes convey the magnitude of biological change, which complements significance testing and helps distinguish biologically meaningful differences from small but statistically detectable ones.
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Reproduction scope — pmid-35978648
Paper: Long CX, Wu JQ, Tan ZJ, Wang SP. Different Intestinal Microbiota with Growth Stages of Three-Breed Hybrid Pig. Biomed Res Int 2022. PMID 35978648 · PMCID PMC9377885 · DOI 10.1155/2022/5603451.
Study design
- 16S rRNA amplicon survey of pig fecal/intestinal microbiota across 3 growth stages.
- 3 groups × 5 pigs = 15 samples: TM = 60 d, FM = 120 d, SM = 180 d.
- Region V3–V4, primers 338F (ACTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCA) / 806R (GGACTACHVGGGTWTCTAAT).
- Discrepancy flagged: paper Methods 2.3 says "Illumina NovaSeq platform"; the deposited SRA runs (PRJNA795214) report Illumina HiSeq 2500. Recorded as a possible reporting inconsistency (not a reproduction blocker).
Pipeline as described (Methods 2.5–2.6)
- OTU clustering: USEARCH "Vsesion7.1" platform (i.e. UPARSE/USEARCH v7.1), 97% similarity.
- QC/filter/decontamination: QIIME2.
- Taxonomy: Greengenes Release 13.8.
- Alpha diversity: QIIME 2019.4 → Chao1, Observed Species, Shannon, Simpson (+ Good's coverage in Table 1).
- Beta diversity: PCoA + NMDS (Anosim implied).
- Differential abundance: LEfSe.
- Note (P16): the only "code" link resolvable for this RU is the third-party
QIIME2 plugin
q2-feature-classifier(taxonomy classifier) — NOT authors' own code. Per brief rule 2, reproducing by applying the described standard tools (USEARCH UPARSE + QIIME2 + Greengenes 13.8) to the paper's own SRA data is a valid reproduction. No authors' pipeline script/repo exists.
IN SCOPE (pipeline-derived, attempted)
| # | Result | Reported | Paper loc |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | High-quality sequences total | 885,695 from 15 samples | Results 3.1 |
| C2 | Total OTUs (3 groups) | 14,470 | Results 3.1, Fig 1b |
| C3 | OTUs per group | TM 6547 / FM 5440 / SM 4387 | Fig 1b |
| C4 | Shared (core) OTUs | 952 | Fig 1b |
| C5 | Alpha diversity per group | Chao1/ObsSpecies/Shannon/Simpson/Coverage | Table 1 |
| C6 | Dominant phyla rel. abund. | Firmicutes TM 78.73/FM 83.91/SM 82.51 %; Bacteroidetes TM 16.33/FM 12.11/SM 7.29 % | Table 2, Results 3.3 |
| C7 | Dominant genera rel. abund. | Lactobacillus/Streptococcus/SMB_53/Oscillospira/Prevotella (Table 3 values) | Table 3 |
| C8 | LEfSe biomarkers | Streptococcaceae→SM, SMB_53→FM, Oscillospira→TM | Fig 4c |
| C9 | Beta diversity | PCoA/NMDS within-group clustering | Fig 4a-b |
Robust, high-confidence reproduction targets: C1 (read retention direction), C5 (alpha-diversity ordering TM>FM>SM richness), C6/C7 (dominant taxa). Exact OTU counts (C2–C4) depend sensitively on USEARCH version + singleton handling and are expected to differ numerically (graded within-tol/partial accordingly).
OUT OF SCOPE (not attempted)
- Body-weight measurements (TM 29.386±0.513 / FM 102.416±2.379 / SM 154.592±4.245 kg) — wet-lab.
- Any statistical-significance asterisks treated as provisional, not exact targets.
Data
- SRA BioProject PRJNA795214 = 15 paired-end amplicon runs (SRR17475777–SRR17475791), Illumina HiSeq 2500, ~1.63 M raw read pairs total (per-run ~89.7k–129.1k), public/open on ENA + SRA.
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 reproduction was never executed — the «our HPC» compute tunnel was unreachable, so all reproduced values for C1–C9 are empty and no reported number could be compared. The deviation sits on our side / infrastructure, not the authors': the raw 16S data (PRJNA795214) is fully public and complete (15=15) and the USEARCH/QIIME2 pipeline is described well enough to attempt, with self-chosen parameters and tool versions being the likely future source of any OTU/diversity drift. Minor flags worth tracking: the paper says NovaSeq while SRA records HiSeq 2500, and the only code link is a generic third-party QIIME2 plugin rather than the authors' own code. No fabrication signal — grade is yellow because the study is solid but the reproduction is unfinished and unverified.
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.