Global chromatin accessibility profiling analysis reveals a chronic activation state in aged muscle stem cells.
The main results reproduced, with only marginal, non-material deviations.
- ✓Same input data as the authors
- 🟡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
1:1 third-party-tool reproduction (P16) — no authors' analysis repo (code link = trimmomatic only), so the paper's exact STAR-Methods ATAC pipeline (Trimmomatic CROP:50 -> Bowtie2 2.3.2 mm10 --very-sensitive-local -k4 -> samtools q30 -> Picard dedup -> rm chrM -> Genrich ATAC -> ChIPseeker + DiffBind FDR<0.01) was applied to its own raw data on «our HPC» SLURM. Data well-described and fully open: ENA PRJNA781248 = 30 ATAC runs (matches reported 30); 4 QSC runs (young uninjured Rep1/2, old oQSC Rep1/2) processed end-to-end. RESULT: the CENTRAL TITLE CLAIM reproduces strongly (C2 within-tol): old QSC show globally increased chromatin accessibility = 17,262 (97.9%) of 17,624 differential sites gained in old vs 362 in young; top sites 197/200 old-gained. C1 (peak genomic distribution) reproduces qualitatively (promoter dominant) but with ~10pp magnitude offsets (promoter 38% vs ~50%) -> partial. C3 (distal enrichment of old gains) is mixed and not cleanly reproduced under our annotation -> partial. No fabrication evidence; discrepancies attributable to tool-version drift. NOT attempted: wet-lab/functional (Pax7 enhancer luciferase/CRISPR, FACS, mouse genetics), full 8-cluster time-course clustering, RNA/ChIP integrative analyses.
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 ⛓ cb8f1867a4b9
✎ 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
- 2026-06-22
- 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: sonnetUsing a PFA-perfusion-based isolation method to preserve in vivo chromatin states, the study asks how chromatin accessibility (ATAC-seq) changes as muscle satellite cells exit quiescence, activate, regenerate, and age, and whether aging alters this chromatin landscape.
- ★ PFA-perfusion-based isolation preserves the true in vivo chromatin accessibility state, avoiding artifacts caused by tissue dissociation-induced activation method
- ★ Quiescent satellite cells (QSCs) have the most compact chromatin environment, with lowest ATAC-seq signal coverage genome-wide and at TSS compared to freshly isolated (FISC) and activated (ASC) SCs finding
- ★ Chromatin accessibility changes during quiescence exit proceed through four distinct phases: quiescence, early activation, full activation, and a stable category, largely driven by distal regulatory elements finding
- ★ Two novel Pax7 enhancers (Pax7 E-intronic and Pax7 E-distal) were identified as quiescence/early-activation-specific accessible, H3K27ac-marked distal elements resource
- ★ Pax7 E-intronic and E-distal function as bona fide enhancers, boosting luciferase reporter activity in 293T (both) and C2C12 (E-intronic) cells finding
- ★ Constant CRISPR-mediated activation of Pax7 enhancers promotes Pax7 expression and stemness while blocking cell-cycle entry and differentiation; CRISPR deletion of the enhancers causes cell-cycle arrest and defective activation, phenocopying Pax7-deficient SCs mechanism
- ★ Aged quiescent satellite cells exhibit a globally increased/chronically activated chromatin accessibility signature compared to young QSCs finding
- Distinct transcription factor motifs are enriched at different activation phases: Jun/Fos family in fully activated SCs, E-protein family in early activation, and Fox family (Foxk1, Foxo1, Foxp2) in quiescent and regenerated SCs finding
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ATAC-seq | quiescent, freshly isolated, and activated satellite cells (mouse) | none/isolation state comparison | chromatin accessibility (PCA, genome-wide/TSS signal coverage, peak distribution) | — |
| RNA-seq | satellite cells, time-course post-injury (mouse, in vivo) | acute muscle injury | gene expression trajectory during quiescence exit | — |
| ATAC-seq | satellite cells, time-course post-injury (mouse, in vivo) | acute muscle injury | chromatin accessibility dynamics, fuzzy clustering of peaks | — |
| ATAC-seq and RNA-seq | regenerating satellite cells, time-course up to 28 days post injury (mouse) | acute muscle injury/regeneration | chromatin accessibility and transcriptome during self-renewal | — |
| TF motif enrichment analysis (from ATAC-seq) | satellite cells across quiescence, activation, regeneration (mouse) | none | transcription factor motif enrichment | — |
| H3K27ac ChIP-seq (reanalyzed published data) | in situ fixed T0/T3 satellite cells, FISCs, ASCs (mouse) | isolation/activation state | active enhancer mark at Pax7 locus | — |
| Dual-luciferase reporter assay | 293T cells and C2C12 cells | transfection with Pax7 E-intronic/E-distal enhancer-containing plasmids | luciferase activity | — |
| CRISPR dCas9 activation / Cas9 deletion with sgRNA, immunostaining and live-cell imaging | primary satellite cells from Pax7-CreERT2;dCas9-SPH or Pax7-CreERT2;Cas9 mice | sgRNA targeting Pax7 enhancers (CRISPRa or knockout) after tamoxifen induction | Pax7 expression, EdU incorporation, MyoG expression, cell number, proliferation/activation by live imaging | — |
- ▼ QSCs show significantly lower ATAC-seq signal coverage genome-wide and at TSS than FISCs and ASCs, indicating a compact chromatin state
- ▲ Distal ATAC-seq peaks increase drastically during activation compared to promoter peaks
- – Eight fuzzy clusters of ATAC-seq signal identified during quiescence exit, grouped into quiescence, early activation, full activation, and stable categories
- – ATAC-seq signal peaks at 4 hours post-injury then gradually decreases toward full activation; chromatin reopens maximally at 60hpi during regeneration and recompacts by 28dpi
- – Two ATAC-seq peaks near Pax7 (E-intronic, E-distal) are enriched in QSCs/early activation, lose accessibility and H3K27ac signal after full activation (T3, FISC, ASC), and regain accessibility during regeneration
- ▲ Both Pax7 enhancer elements increase luciferase reporter activity in 293T cells; E-intronic also increases activity in C2C12 cells
- – sgRNA-mediated dCas9 activation of enhancers increases Pax7 expression by 40h but reduces EdU incorporation, later reduces MyoG+ cells and total cell number, while Cas9-mediated enhancer deletion decreases Pax7 expression and EdU incorporation and blocks proliferation/activation in live imaging
- – Jun/Fos family TF motifs enriched in fully activated SCs; Fox family motifs (Foxk1, Foxo1, Foxp2) enriched and highly expressed in quiescent/regenerated SCs
- pvalue p < 0.05 (dual-luciferase assay in 293T cells (Figure 4E))
- pvalue p < 0.001 (dual-luciferase assay in 293T cells (Figure 4E))
- pvalue p < 0.05, p < 0.0001 (Pax7 intensity/EdU quantification after 40h sgRNA treatment (Figure 5C))
- pvalue p < 0.05, p < 0.01 (MyoG+ cell quantification after 64h sgRNA treatment (Figure 5D))
- other ~50% promoter, ~25% intronic, ~20% intergenic (relative genomic distribution of ATAC-seq peaks across cell states (Figure S1D))
- other 4 hours post-injury (peak ATAC-seq signal) (timing of maximal chromatin accessibility during quiescence exit)
- other 28 days post injury (time point at which compact chromatin environment is re-established during self-renewal)
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 primarily reports genome-wide ATAC-seq and RNA-seq profiling (PCA, signal coverage, motif enrichment, fuzzy clustering, hierarchical clustering) to characterize chromatin accessibility across satellite cell states and aging, without detailing specific statistical test names for these genomic comparisons in the visible text. For a small number of functional validation experiments (luciferase reporter assays, Pax7/EdU/MyoG quantification after enhancer perturbation), results are reported with significance thresholds (e.g., p<0.05, p<0.001, p<0.0001) and n=3, but the specific statistical test used to generate these p-values is not stated in the provided text.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| not stated (significance denoted by asterisks only) | Dual-luciferase assay, Figure 4E | n = 3 | not stated |
| not stated (significance denoted by asterisks only) | Pax7 intensity and EdU incorporation quantification, Figure 5C | n = 3 | not stated |
| not stated (significance denoted by asterisks only) | MyoG+ SC quantification, Figure 5D | n = 3 | not stated |
-
Significance for the luciferase, Pax7/EdU, and MyoG quantification comparisons is reported as threshold-based p-values (e.g., p<0.05) without naming the underlying test.↳ Could also: Reporting the specific test (e.g., Student's t-test or one-way ANOVA with post-hoc comparison) along with exact p-values — Naming the test and giving exact p-values allows readers to evaluate the statistical model's assumptions (e.g., normality, variance homogeneity) and permits more precise interpretation and meta-analytic reuse than threshold reporting alone.
-
Multiple treatment groups (control, E-intronic sgRNA, E-distal sgRNA) appear to be compared against a control in several figures (4E, 5C, 5D).↳ Could also: A one-way ANOVA (or Kruskal-Wallis for non-normal data) with a post-hoc correction (e.g., Dunnett's or Tukey's test) across the three groups — When more than two groups are compared to a common control, an omnibus test with appropriate post-hoc correction is a standard way to control the family-wise error rate compared with performing separate pairwise tests.
-
Small sample sizes (n = 3) are used for luciferase and cell-based quantification assays.↳ Could also: Reporting a 95% confidence interval or effect size (e.g., Cohen's d) alongside the p-value — With small n, confidence intervals and effect sizes convey the magnitude and precision of an observed difference, complementing significance thresholds which can be less informative at low sample sizes.
-
Genome-wide comparisons (e.g., differential ATAC-seq peaks across cell states/ages, TF motif enrichment) are described primarily through visualization (PCA, clustering, signal coverage) without explicit statistical test names in the visible text.↳ Could also: Standard differential accessibility tools (e.g., DiffBind/DESeq2 for peak-level comparisons) with FDR correction (e.g., Benjamini-Hochberg) — These tools/approaches are commonly used for ATAC-seq differential analysis and provide formal significance and multiplicity control across thousands of tested peaks or motifs, complementing descriptive/visualization-based summaries.
-
Sample replication (biological vs. technical) is not explicitly specified for the ATAC-seq/RNA-seq time-course experiments in the visible text.↳ Could also: Explicitly stating the number of independent biological replicates per condition and time point — Clarifying biological versus technical replication helps readers assess the generalizability of the chromatin/transcriptomic trajectories described.
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — pmid-36093058
Paper: Dong A, Liu J, Lin K, Zeng W, So WK, Hu S, Cheung TH. Global chromatin accessibility profiling analysis reveals a chronic activation state in aged muscle stem cells. iScience 2022. PMID 36093058 · PMCID PMC9459695 · DOI 10.1016/j.isci.2022.104954.
Data: GEO GSE189074 (SuperSeries, 68 samples), composed of:
- GSE189044 — ATAC-seq, 30 samples (GSM5693746–GSM5693775), SRA SRP346602 / PRJNA781248. Core dataset for the title claim.
- GSE189046 — H3K27ac ChIP-seq (ChIPmentation), 8 samples (GSM5693811–GSM5693818).
- GSE189073 — RNA-seq, 30 samples (GSM5694265–GSM5694294).
Code link in brief: https://github.com/timflutre/trimmomatic (the read-trimmer only). There is no authors' own analysis repository for this paper. Per BRIEF rule P16, this is a legitimate third-party-tool reproduction: we apply the standard, paper-described ATAC-seq pipeline (the tools the Methods name, with their stated parameters) to the paper's own raw data and compare the derived results.
Pipeline described in Methods (ATAC-seq) — what we will run
- Trimmomatic v0.36 —
PE CROP:50(trim reads to 50 bp). - Bowtie2 v2.3.2 to mm10 —
--minins 30 --maxins 2000 --dovetail -k 4 --very-sensitive-local(string as printed in the paper; exact tokenization verified against Methods at run time). - Samtools — remove reads with mapping quality < 30.
- Picard MarkDuplicates — remove duplicates; remove chrM.
- Genrich v0.6 — ATAC mode
-j,-y -r -e chrM, peak calling. - DiffBind v3.4.0 — correlation + differential accessibility; significance FDR < 0.01.
- Peak genomic annotation (ChIPseeker / TxDb.Mmusculus.UCSC.mm10.knownGene) for the distribution claim.
IN SCOPE (pipeline-derived, attempted)
| id | result | paper location | pipeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | ATAC peak genomic distribution: ~50% promoter, ~25% intronic, ~20% intergenic (QSC) | Fig S1D; Results "Dissecting the chromatin accessibility" | Trimmomatic→Bowtie2→Genrich→ChIPseeker |
| C2 | Old QSC have significantly increased chromatin accessibility vs young QSC (direction) | Fig 6C/6D; Results aging section | full pipeline + DiffBind FDR<0.01, oQSC vs uninjured-young QSC |
| C3 | Old QSC show increased accessibility specifically in distal regions | Fig S8G | peak annotation, distal fraction oQSC vs young QSC |
| C4 | Per-sample peak counts / library QC (mappability, dedup, peaks) | Methods + implied | pipeline QC metrics |
Primary 80%-floor target = C1 (cleanest, fully quantified, single-condition). Stretch targets = C2/C3 (the title's aging claim; needs DiffBind across QSC reps).
OUT OF SCOPE (not attempted, with reason)
- Wet-lab / functional validation: Pax7 enhancer luciferase/CRISPR deletion, FACS, immunostaining, mouse genetics (Fig 4–5 functional panels) — not computational.
- Fuzzy c-means clustering into 8 clusters (C1–C8) across the full 13-timepoint time course (Fig 2–3) — derivable in principle but requires the entire 30-sample ATAC matrix; beyond the floor, attempted only if QSC targets succeed and budget allows.
- RNA-seq (DESeq2, FDR<0.05) and ChIP-seq (MACS2) integrative analyses — secondary to the chromatin-accessibility title claim; profiled as datasets, reproduction deferred / optional stretch.
- H3K27ac super-enhancer / ROSE analyses — not attempted in first pass.
Compute plan
All heavy compute on «our HPC» (SLURM, partition=std, no --mem). Raw FASTQ
(~208 GB for all 30 ATAC runs; ~30 GB for the 4 QSC runs) downloaded on front1
to «infra» «path».
First pass downloads only the 4 QSC runs:
- young QSC (uninjured): GSM5693746=SRR16967705, GSM5693747=SRR16967706
- old QSC (oQSC): GSM5693770=SRR16967729, GSM5693771=SRR16967730
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.
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.