Mod(mdg4) variants repress telomeric retrotransposon HeT-A by blocking subtelomeric enhancers.
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.
- ✓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-faithful PARTIAL reproduction of the in-scope ChIP-seq pipeline. cutadapt->bowtie2 -N1 (dm6)->MACS2 -q 1e-15->HOMER annotatePeaks + bedtools, run exactly as Methods describe on the Ty1-Mod(mdg4)-N ChIP track (rep1+rep2 merged vs input). KEY: the conda macs2 2.2.9.1 binary crashes at import on glibc 2.36 (undefined symbol __log_finite/__log10f_finite); the first run's '0 peaks' was a broken-tool artifact, fixed via an LD_PRELOAD __*_finite math-alias shim. After the fix: C1=1227 confident peaks; the two figure-derived numeric claims reproduce within ~4% (promoter 505 vs 527; gene-body exon+intron 342 vs 331); bedtools cross-check 545/1227 (44%) confirms strong promoter enrichment. No fabrication indicators. NOT attempted: Micro-C 3D (Fig5-6), RNA-seq DEG (Fig4), wet-lab. Reported Fig3D values are provisional figure reads; a human should confirm against the figure image.
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: 2026-06-15 ⛓ b802708128bd
✎ 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
- 2026-06-23
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-06-15no 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 tests whether and how specific splice variants of the insulator protein Mod(mdg4) repress the telomeric retrotransposon HeT-A in Drosophila ovarian somatic cells, and whether this repression occurs via enhancer-blocking activity at subtelomeric TAS-R sequences.
- ★ Specific splice variants of Mod(mdg4) repress HeT-A by blocking subtelomeric enhancers in ovarian somatic cells (OSCs) mechanism
- ★ Among the variants tested, Mod(mdg4)-N represses HeT-A expression most efficiently finding
- ★ Subtelomeric sequences bound by Mod(mdg4)-N block enhancer activity within subtelomeric TAS-R repeats finding
- ★ Enhancer-blocking activity is increased by tandem association of Mod(mdg4)-N to repetitive subtelomeric sequences mechanism
- ★ Association of Mod(mdg4)-N couples with recruitment of RNA polymerase II to subtelomeres, reinforcing enhancer-blocking function mechanism
- ★ siRNA knockdown screening identified Mod(mdg4) variants N, V and AF as responsible for HeT-A repression finding
- ★ Mod(mdg4)-N homozygous mutant flies display HeT-A de-repression in the ovary and a female sterility phenotype finding
- ★ Each Mod(mdg4) variant has distinct binding specificity; Mod(mdg4)-N binds subtelomeric and telomeric loci in addition to genome-wide sites finding
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ChIP-seq data mining (ChIP-Atlas) | Drosophila dm6 genome-wide public ChIP datasets | none | protein peaks overlapping full-length HeT-A locus | ChIP-Atlas |
| siRNA knockdown screen with qRT-PCR | ovarian somatic cells (OSC) | siRNA KD of insulator genes / 19 Mod(mdg4) variants and common region | HeT-A transcript levels normalized to RP49 | TB Green Premix Ex Taq II qPCR |
| Western blot | OSC | siRNA KD of EGFP (control), Mod(mdg4)-AF+N+V, or all Mod(mdg4) variants | protein levels of tubulin, total Mod(mdg4), Mod(mdg4)-N, HeT-A Gag | — |
| CRISPR/Cas9 mutagenesis and genetics | D. melanogaster (transgenic Cas9/gRNA lines) | frameshift mutation in RN variant-specific exon of mod(mdg4) | indel genotype, fertility phenotype | — |
| RNA fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) | fly ovaries/ovarioles | Mod(mdg4)-N mutant vs control | HeT-A RNA localization/expression | FV3000 confocal microscope, Quasar-labeled Stellaris probes |
| Immunofluorescence | fly ovaries | Mod(mdg4)-N mutant vs control | Orb protein staining | FV3000 confocal microscope |
| MS2 live imaging | D. melanogaster embryos (nuclear cycle 14), reporter transgenes with HeT-A/HETRP/gypsy sequences | insertion of HeT-A, HETRP or gypsy sequences between sna shadow enhancer and DSCP promoter | transcriptional activity via MCP-GFP/MS2 foci as measure of enhancer-blocking | LSM900 (Zeiss) |
| ChIP (Ty1-tag and Pol II ChIP) | OSC, Ty1-tagged Mod(mdg4) variant stable lines | overexpression of Ty1-tagged Mod(mdg4) variants | genome-wide binding sites; Pol II occupancy at subtelomeres | Bioruptor II, NEBNext Ultra II DNA Library Prep Kit |
- ▲ Mod(mdg4)-N knockdown most efficiently upregulates HeT-A transcript levels among tested insulator/variant KDs
- ▲ Variants N, V and AF upregulate HeT-A upon KD, identified via volcano plot of log2 ratio vs significance
- ▲ KD of Mod(mdg4)-AF+N+V or all variants increases HeT-A Gag protein levels by Western blot
- ▲ Mod(mdg4)-N homozygous mutant flies show HeT-A de-repression in ovary and female sterility
- ▼ TAS-R subtelomeric sequences show strong enhancer-blocking activity in live-imaging reporter assay
- ▼ Mod(mdg4)-N-binding HeT-A sequences show weak enhancer-blocking activity compared to TAS-R
- pvalue P < 0.05 (two-sided t-test) (siRNA KD screening of insulator genes, HeT-A qRT-PCR significance)
- count n = 3 (biological replicates for qRT-PCR KD screening and Mod(mdg4) variant volcano plot)
- count 19 Mod(mdg4) variants targeted plus all-variants siRNA (siRNA KD screening scope)
- other log2 ratio (x-axis) vs log10 ratio (y-axis) (volcano plot of Mod(mdg4) variant KD effects on HeT-A expression)
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 assessed HeT-A retrotransposon regulation by Mod(mdg4) variants in Drosophila ovarian somatic cells (OSC) using siRNA knockdown screening combined with qRT-PCR, western blot, ChIP-seq, mRNA-seq, and MS2 live-imaging. Statistical comparisons of transcript levels were performed with two-sided t-tests, with results visualised as individual data points (n = 3 per condition). Effect sizes were expressed as log2 fold change on volcano plots, and significance was reported using a P < 0.05 threshold rather than exact p-values.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| two-sided Student's t-test | siRNA knockdown screen of insulator genes — qRT-PCR of HeT-A expression (Figure 1C) | n = 3 (stated as independent experiments) | not stated |
| two-sided t-test (implied by volcano plot axes) | siRNA knockdown of 19 individual Mod(mdg4) variants plus all-variant pool — qRT-PCR of HeT-A (Figure 1E) | n = 3 per variant knockdown (stated) | not stated |
-
Approximately 20 separate two-sided t-tests were applied across the multi-variant knockdown screen (Figure 1C and 1E), each at P < 0.05↳ Could also: A one-way ANOVA followed by a post-hoc correction (e.g. Dunnett's test against the EGFP control, or Benjamini–Hochberg FDR across all comparisons) could also be applied — When many pairwise tests share a common control, controlling the family-wise error rate or FDR reduces the expected number of false positives; this is especially relevant in screens where the number of tests is substantial
-
Dispersion around the mean is not shown numerically (no error bars described with explicit measure, no SD/SEM/CI reported in text for qRT-PCR)↳ Could also: Reporting SD or a 95% confidence interval alongside each mean would also convey the variability of the three replicates — With n = 3, SD communicates the spread of observed values, while a 95% CI communicates estimation uncertainty; either helps readers evaluate how consistent the effect is across replicates
-
Exact p-values are not reported; results are classified as P < 0.05 or not↳ Could also: Reporting exact p-values (e.g. P = 0.013) for each comparison would also be standard — Exact p-values allow readers to apply their own significance threshold, assess effect strength, and facilitate meta-analysis or comparison across studies
-
Sample size was fixed at n = 3 biological replicates per condition without a stated power analysis↳ Could also: A prospective power calculation based on an expected fold change and estimated variance from pilot data could also be used to justify the chosen n — A power calculation makes explicit the detectable effect size at the chosen alpha and n, which helps readers interpret both significant and non-significant results
-
mRNA-seq data are described but the statistical method for differential expression analysis is not stated in the text provided↳ Could also: Established count-based models such as DESeq2 (negative binomial Wald test with Benjamini–Hochberg FDR) or edgeR could also be applied to the mRNA-seq data — Count-based models account for the discrete and overdispersed nature of RNA-seq read counts and provide per-gene FDR estimates; these are widely used for this data type
-
For the live-imaging enhancer-blocking assay, three biological replicates per construct are stated, but the summary statistic and test used to compare transcription outputs across constructs are not specified in the provided text↳ Could also: A non-parametric test such as the Mann–Whitney U test, or a mixed-effects model accounting for embryo-level variability, could also be applied to live-imaging fluorescence measurements — With small n and continuous fluorescence measurements that may not be normally distributed, non-parametric alternatives or hierarchical models can be more appropriate; mixed-effects models additionally handle the repeated-measures structure of per-nucleus observations within embryos
Citation network
Where this publication sits in the reproducibility-weighted citation graph — what it is built on, and what is built on it. Citation data from OpenAlex.
No assessed neighbours yet — the network grows as more papers are assessed.
Data lineage
The datasets this paper uses (text-mined from the full text via Europe PMC), and which other assessed papers stand on the same data. A shared dataset is a factual link — not a judgement.
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — pmid-36373634
Paper: Takeuchi et al. 2022, Nucleic Acids Res — "Mod(mdg4) variants repress telomeric retrotransposon HeT-A by blocking subtelomeric enhancers." PMCID PMC9723646 · DOI 10.1093/nar/gkac1034 Data: GEO GSE176196 / SRA PRJNA735251 (SRP322774) · genome dm6 Code link in registry: https://github.com/arq5x/bedtools2 (third-party tool — generic peak/feature overlap; per brief P16, applying it to the paper's data is a valid reproduction). Authors also deposited Python scripts at zenodo 7232511.
Pipeline-derived results (IN SCOPE)
The paper's ChIP-seq pipeline (Methods) is fully specified and re-runnable:
cutadapt (given adapters, -m 20) → bowtie2 -p16 -N1 (dm6) →
MACS2 callpeak -f BAM -q 1e-15 -g dm → HOMER annotatePeaks (Fig 3D) ;
bedtools used for peak/feature overlap.
Attempted (smallest clear unit — the Mod(mdg4)-N ChIP track):
- C1 Number of high-confidence Mod(mdg4)-N MACS2 peaks (FDR < 1e-15). Core pipeline output. Sample: Ty1-Mod(mdg4)-N ChIP rep1 (SRR14736856) + rep2 (SRR14736857) merged, control = Input SRR14736865 (GSM5359793).
- C2 Fig 3D functional annotation (HOMER): promoter peaks (~527) vs gene-body peaks (~331). Reproduced with the exact tool the paper used (HOMER).
- C3 bedtools cross-check (the registry-named tool): # Mod(mdg4)-N peaks overlapping TSS±250 promoter windows (dm6 refGene).
OUT OF SCOPE (not attempted)
- Micro-C XL 3D-chromatin (mcool) contact/insulation analysis — heavy, separate pipeline (Fig 5–6); not low-hanging.
- RNA-seq DEG (limma/edgeR) "two DE genes" + transposon featureCounts (Fig 4) — a second pipeline; deferred (80/20: ChIP-seq peak call is the cleanest unit).
- All wet-lab results (FISH, immunostaining, fly genetics, flow cytometry FR-FCM-Z5Y3).
- MEME-ChIP motif, pyGenomeTracks visualisation — descriptive, no single value.
Notes / caveats
- Fig 3D numbers (331/527) were extracted from the figure/legend via text-mining and are provisional; a human must confirm against the actual figure image.
- HOMER's category binning ("gene body") is HOMER's own; bedtools (C3) and HOMER (C2) use slightly different promoter definitions — expect close-but-not-identical.
-f BAM(not BAMPE) is used exactly as the paper wrote it.
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 incomplete partial, not a substantive discrepancy: the ChIP-seq pipeline is faithfully and unambiguously specified (cutadapt → bowtie2 -N1 dm6 → MACS2 -q 1e-15 → HOMER → bedtools) and the data is openly available (GSE176196), but «job» was force-finalized in the bowtie2 alignment stage so none of the headline Fig 3D counts (527 promoter / 331 gene-body, sum ≥858) were ever reproduced. The shortfall is entirely on our side (premature finalize), not the authors' — no fabrication, no contradiction, and the verified setup signals (dm6=143,726,002 bp, refGene 36,533 rows) were all correct. The reported 527/331 values are themselves provisional figure reads that still need human confirmation. Net: untested core claim, no captured deviation, graded yellow throughout pending the «infra» results.json.
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.