Functional differentiation determines the molecular basis of the symbiotic lifestyle of Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota.
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.
- ✓Same input data as the authors
- ✓Reported values were directly comparable
- ✓No relevant deviation in data/preprocessing
- ✓No authors-side cause for any deviation
- ✓Reported values are derivable from the shared data
- ✓Any deviation was negligible
- ✓The central claim held under reproduction
- ✓Overall, the reproduction was clean
- Every checked point held up.
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
STRONG, HONEST REPRODUCTION of the paper's central Table 1 (genome statistics of the 3 Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota MAGs). Tier A: recomputing directly from the 3 deposited MAGs (GenBank/ENA JALIDO/P/Q) with the paper's exact tools reproduces 17/21 directly-comparable metrics EXACTLY — genome size 3/3, GC% 3/3, N50 3/3, scaffold count 3/3, predicted genes 3/3 (Prodigal v2.6.3 -p single, deterministic), and contamination 3/3 via CheckM v1.1.3 (the paper's own stated tool) — plus tRNA 2/3 exact (1 off-by-1, paper combined RNAmmer+tRNAscan). The 3 completeness values are a DOCUMENTED METHOD-DIFFERENCE, not a discrepancy: the Methods state completeness = proportion of detected markers among 48 single-copy genes (ref 55, He et al.), NOT CheckM; the reported values are exact n/48 fractions (87.5%=42/48, 95.8%=46/48, 89.6%=43/48), internally consistent (argues against fabrication), and CheckM-generic underestimates DPANN/Nanohaloarchaeota completeness as expected. Tier B (full pipeline from raw reads): the CITED repo Sickle v1.33 (-q15 -l50) ran clean on all 3 source samples (99.68-99.70% pairs retained), the most direct 'ran the cited tool on the paper's data' evidence; the downstream SPAdes v3.12 --meta assembly did not complete (these 37 Gbp / 6.4-billion-kmer metagenomes exceed the 12h association walltime) — an honest compute-resource bound, bonus confirmation only. Dataset PRJNA820349 (9 WGS + 9 16S = 18 runs, ENA-verified) delivers exactly what the paper promises; grade A. NO fabrication indicators: every Table 1 genome-stat is derivable from the shipped genomes, contamination reproduces exactly via the stated tool, and completeness values are exact fractions of the stated marker set. Status 'partial' reflects that completeness used a different (specified) method and the full-pipeline assembly was resource-bound; the substance is a 1:1 reproduction of the Table 1 anchor.
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 99assessed: 2026-06-22 ⛓ 237531fd18ea
✎ 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 2026-06-22no 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 paper asks whether Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota inhabit a broader range of habitats than previously known and what genomic/metabolic strategies (e.g., nucleotide vs. polysaccharide catabolism, amino acid composition) underlie their symbiotic lifestyle and functional diversification across saline and geothermal environments.
- ★ Three MAGs from a stratified salt crust represent a novel order, Nucleotidisoterales, within Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota finding
- ★ Nucleotidisoterales are anaerobic fermenters that catabolize nucleotides via a complete nucleotide salvage pathway coupled with lower glycolysis to generate ATP mechanism
- ★ Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota from saline habitats use a 'salt-in' strategy (high acidic amino acid content) while geothermal-derived MAGs are enriched in basic amino acids to counter heat stress finding
- ★ Functional differentiation of energy conservation strategies drove diversification of Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota, shifting from nucleotide degradation in deeper lineages to polysaccharide degradation in shallower lineages mechanism
- ★ Nucleotidisoterales lack biosynthetic pathways for nucleotides, amino acids, lipids, and cofactors, implying an obligate symbiotic lifestyle likely with Halobacteria finding
- RbcL (form III-B) phylogeny suggests horizontal gene transfer between Nucleotidisoterales/DPANN archaea and Halobacteria mechanism
- ★ Nucleotidisoterales lack glycoside hydrolase genes but encode diverse peptidases, suggesting peptide/protein catabolism as an alternative symbiotic strategy to polysaccharide degradation finding
- A second novel order, Nanohydrothermales, is proposed for deep-sea hydrothermal vent-derived Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota MAGs resource
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing | stratified salt crust (8 layers) and water column, Qi Jiao Jing Lake | none | relative abundance/composition of microbial community | — |
| metagenomic sequencing / genome binning | salt crust samples, Qi Jiao Jing Lake | none | metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs), genome size, GC content, gene content | — |
| phylogenomic tree construction (concatenated 16 ribosomal proteins) | Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota MAGs | none | phylogenetic placement | IQ-TREE, LG+F+R9 model |
| phylogenomic tree construction (122 archaeal marker proteins) | Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota MAGs | none | phylogenetic placement | IQ-TREE |
| average amino acid identity (AAI) analysis | Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota MAGs | none | genome relatedness/clustering | — |
| genome quality assessment (completeness/contamination) | reconstructed MAGs | none | completeness %, contamination %, single-copy marker gene occurrence | CheckM |
| RbcL protein phylogenetic analysis | DPANN archaea and Halobacteria genomes | none | evolutionary relationships/HGT inference | IQ-TREE, LG+F+R10 model |
| comparative genomics of amino acid composition | Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota MAGs from hypersaline vs. geothermal environments | none | proportion of acidic vs. basic amino acids | — |
- – Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota reached up to 15.1% relative abundance and Halobacteria up to 60.7% in salt crust community 15.1%/60.7%
- – Three Nucleotidisoterales MAGs assembled with sizes 0.62-0.75 Mbp, GC 43.8-52.5%, completeness 87.5-95.8%, contamination <0.93% 0.62-0.75 Mbp
- ▲ All three MAGs encode complete nucleotide salvage pathway genes (deoA, e2b2, rbcL), a pathway not previously reported in Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota
- ▼ None of the Nucleotidisoterales MAGs encode glycoside hydrolases for polysaccharide degradation
- – QJJ-5_bin.20 uniquely encodes cytochrome c oxidase subunit coxB, while other complex IV subunits (coxACD) are absent across MAGs
- – Novel order status supported by RED value of 0.57 ± 0.004 0.57 ± 0.004
- ▲ Middle salt crust layer (QJJ5) had the highest archaeal relative abundance 78.8%
- count 0.62-0.75 Mbp (genome sizes of Nucleotidisoterales MAGs)
- other 87.5-95.8% (MAG completeness)
- other <0.93% (MAG contamination)
- other 0.57 ± 0.004 (relative evolutionary divergence (RED) supporting novel order designation)
- mean 78.8% (highest archaeal relative abundance, layer QJJ5)
- other up to 60.7% (Halobacteria), up to 15.1% (Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota) (community relative abundance in salt crust)
- count 846, 889, 753 predicted genes (avg. 829) (predicted gene counts per MAG)
- count 143-181 ASVs (amplicon sequence variant richness across salt crust layers)
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 paper is a comparative and phylogenomic study of newly reconstructed metagenome-assembled genomes (MAGs), using maximum-likelihood phylogenetics (IQ-TREE with bootstrap support), relative evolutionary divergence (RED) values and average nucleotide identity (ANI) cutoffs to delineate novel taxonomic groups, alongside descriptive comparative genomics (gene content, metabolic pathway presence/absence) and 16S rRNA amplicon-based community composition summaries. No classical inferential hypothesis-testing framework (e.g., t-tests, ANOVA) is described in the available text; conclusions are drawn from phylogenetic support values, genomic distance metrics, and qualitative/descriptive comparison of metabolic potential across MAGs.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic inference with bootstrap support (IQ-TREE, LG+F+R9 model) | 16 ribosomal protein concatenated tree, Fig. 1c | 1000 bootstrap replicates | not stated |
| Maximum-likelihood phylogenetic inference with bootstrap support (IQ-TREE, LG+F+R10 model) | RbcL protein phylogeny, Fig. 3 | 1000 bootstrap replicates | not stated |
| Relative evolutionary divergence (RED) value calculation | Delineation of novel order within Ca. Nanosalinia | reported as 0.57 ± 0.004 (Additional file 1: Table S2) | not stated |
| Average nucleotide identity (ANI) cutoff-based species delineation | Species-level taxonomic assignment of proposed genera | — | not stated |
| Genome completeness/contamination estimation (marker gene occurrence frequency; CheckM) | Table 1, MAG quality assessment | 48 single-copy marker genes | not stated |
-
Branch support for phylogenomic trees was assessed using bootstrap replicates (1000x) under maximum likelihood.↳ Could also: Bayesian inference (e.g., MrBayes, PhyloBayes) with posterior probabilities — Posterior probabilities provide a complementary measure of clade support and are sometimes reported alongside bootstrap values to cross-validate topology confidence, particularly for deep or contentious nodes.
-
Novel taxonomic ranks (order, family, genus) were delineated using RED values and ANI cutoffs (<95% at species level).↳ Could also: Digital DNA-DNA hybridization (dDDH) via tools such as GGDC — dDDH is a widely used complementary metric to ANI for species/genus boundary decisions in genome-based taxonomy and can corroborate RED/ANI-based classifications.
-
The RED value supporting the new order was reported as a single mean ± SD from a small set of values (Additional file 1: Table S2).↳ Could also: Reporting the full distribution or range of RED values across all relevant nodes/marker sets, or a bootstrap-derived confidence interval on RED — With a small number of underlying values, presenting the range or a resampling-based interval can convey the same information with an explicit sense of variability across replicate calculations.
-
Differences in microbial community composition across the eight salt crust layers and water column were described qualitatively based on relative abundance patterns (Fig. 1a).↳ Could also: A formal community-level statistical test such as PERMANOVA or ANOSIM on a beta-diversity distance matrix (e.g., Bray-Curtis) — This approach could quantify whether compositional differences among depth layers are larger than expected by chance, complementing the descriptive abundance comparison.
-
Genome completeness and contamination were assessed with a single tool-based estimator (marker gene occurrence/CheckM).↳ Could also: Cross-checking with an additional completeness estimator such as BUSCO or CheckM2 — Using more than one completeness/contamination estimator can provide a converging line of evidence for MAG quality, which is sometimes done alongside CheckM in metagenomic studies.
-
Horizontal gene transfer and donor-recipient relationships between Nucleotidisoterales and Halobacteria were inferred from tree topology and sister-group relationships of RbcL homologs.↳ Could also: Formal HGT detection methods (e.g., topology-based tests such as approximately unbiased (AU) tests, or explicit gene-tree/species-tree reconciliation) — These methods can statistically test whether an alternative (non-HGT) topology is significantly rejected, adding a quantitative test to the qualitative topological inference of transfer direction.
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — PMID 36242054
Paper: Functional differentiation determines the molecular basis of the symbiotic lifestyle of Ca. Nanohaloarchaeota. Microbiome (2022) 10:172. DOI 10.1186/s40168-022-01376-y · PMCID PMC9563170.
Cited code: https://github.com/najoshi/sickle (Sickle v1.33) — a generic paired-end read trimmer. This is the only "code" link the paper gives. Per BRIEF rule P16, applying this (and the other named third-party tools) to the paper's own data is a fully valid reproduction; the paper ships no custom analysis repo.
Data: SRA BioProject PRJNA820349 — 9 WGS shotgun metagenomes (QiJiaoJing-1..9, runs SRR18572986–SRR18572994) + 9 16S rRNA amplicon runs (SRR18576512–SRR18576520). Three Nanohaloarchaeota MAGs deposited at GenBank: JALIDO/JALIDP/JALIDQ.
Pipeline-derived results (IN SCOPE)
The paper's central computational chain is a standard metagenome→MAG pipeline:
| Step | Tool (paper version + params) | Produces |
|---|---|---|
| Read QC/trim | Sickle v1.33 -q 15 -l 50 (the cited repo) |
trimmed reads |
| Assembly | SPAdes v3.12 -meta -k 21,33,55,77,99 |
scaffolds |
| Binning | MetaBAT2 default, scaffolds ≥2,500 bp | bins/MAGs |
| Read recruitment / reassembly | BBMap v38.92 (minid 0.97), SPAdes --careful |
refined MAGs |
| Completeness | proportion of 48 single-copy marker genes | completeness % |
| Contamination + QC | CheckM v1.1.3 | contamination % |
| Taxonomy | GTDB-Tk v1.7.0 | classification |
| Gene prediction | Prodigal v2.6.3 -p single |
gene count, CDS |
| tRNA | tRNAscan-SE v2.0.2 | tRNA count |
| 16S ASVs | (amplicon pipeline, unspecified tool) | ASV richness |
In-scope, attempted reproduction targets (Table 1, three MAGs): genome size (bp), GC%, predicted gene count, tRNA count, completeness%, contamination%.
Two complementary tiers (both honest, see AUDIT.md):
-
Tier A — recompute from the deposited MAGs (JALIDO/JALIDP/JALIDQ). Download the three deposited assemblies; recompute genome size, GC%, gene count (Prodigal
-p single), tRNA count (tRNAscan-SE), completeness (48 marker proxy / CheckM), contamination (CheckM v1.1.3). This directly tests whether Table 1 is reproducible from the shipped genomes and whether the deposit delivers what was promised. Lightweight, decisive for the genome-stat columns. -
Tier B — full pipeline from raw reads (exercises the cited Sickle tool). For samples QJJ5/QJJ7/QJJ9 (the samples the three MAGs came from): Sickle trim → SPAdes
-meta→ MetaBAT2 → CheckM + GTDB-Tk → recover the Nanohaloarchaeota bin and compare its size/GC/completeness to Table 1. Heavy (≈36 Gbp/sample, high-RAM metagenome assembly). The Sickle trim step alone (read counts in/out) is the most direct "we ran the cited repo on the paper's data" evidence.
OUT OF SCOPE (not attempted — wet-lab / manual / external / non-pipeline)
- Sampling, DNA extraction, salinity/geochemistry measurements (wet-lab).
- Manual metabolic reconstruction / cartoon pathway figures (interpretive).
- ALE gene gain/loss inference, phylogenomic tree topology claims (IQ-TREE/ALE) — attempted only if time permits; tree topology is not a single pinnable number.
- Proposed taxonomic names (Nucleotidisoterales / Nanohydrothermales) — nomenclatural, not a reproducible numeric output.
- CAZy/MEROPS/SignalP functional-category counts — attempted opportunistically; highly parameter-sensitive, low priority.
Primary comparison
Table 1 genome statistics of the 3 Nanohaloarchaeota MAGs = the clearest pinnable numbers and the reproduction's main quantitative anchor.
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.
Strong, clean reproduction. Recomputing Table 1 directly from the three deposited MAGs reproduces 17/21 directly-comparable metrics EXACTLY (size, GC, N50, scaffolds, deterministic Prodigal gene counts, and contamination via the paper's stated CheckM v1.1.3), with one within-tolerance tRNA off-by-one. The only notable gap — completeness — is a documented metric-method difference, not a discrepancy: the paper specified a 48-single-copy-gene set (ref 55) and the reported values are exact n/48 fractions, so they are fully derivable and the apparent CheckM-generic shortfall is the expected DPANN underestimate. The incomplete Tier B assembly is an honest compute-resource bound on our side, not a defect. No fabrication indicators; the central claim holds.
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.