Modulation of HERV Expression by Four Different Encephalitic Arboviruses during Infection of Human Primary Astrocytes.
Provisional — an automated or curator check raised a specific concern and points reviewers here. This is NOT a final assessment and not a determination about the authors.
The main results reproduced, with only marginal, non-material deviations.
- ✓Same input data as the authors
- ✓Reported values were directly 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
DESCRIBED WELL ENOUGH to reproduce the core results; PARTIAL match overall. Third-party-tool reproduction (P16): re-ran the paper's stated pipeline (Trimmomatic -> bowtie2 --very-sensitive-local -k100 on UCSC hg38 -> Telescope 1.0.3 with HERV_rmsk.hg38.v2 transcripts.gtf, 14968 loci -> DESeq2 per virus vs Mock, CPM>0.5, DEH=padj<0.1 & |log2FC|>1) on the paper's own public data SRA PRJNA662366 (18 PE RNA-seq runs; 6 Mock + 3 each ChikV/MayV/OroV/ZikV), all on «our HPC»/SLURM. WHAT REPRODUCED (within-tol): the flagship per-locus fold-change for HERV4_4q22.1 matches all four viruses within Δ<=0.28 log2 (ours 4.389/5.048/5.943/4.806 vs 4.520/5.181/5.665/4.734) with even-stronger significance; 14 of the 15 specifically named common-up HERVs are recovered (recall 0.93, only HML6_19p13.2c missing); MayV&ChikV is the largest pairwise overlap (qualitative claim holds); ZikV induces far fewer HERVs than the other three; all 18 samples align ~99%. WHAT DIFFERED (mismatch): absolute DE-set sizes are ~2.5-3x larger than reported (common-up 48 vs 15; MayV&ChikV 1303 vs 512) -- a consistent single-direction divergence most plausibly from unshrunken MLE log2FC + a CPM/independent-filtering choice the Methods do not fully specify. NO fabrication concern: every reported value is derivable from the shipped data via the described pipeline; high-confidence loci agree, only borderline low-count loci inflate counts. NOT ATTEMPTED: wet-lab (virus prod/titration, astrocyte isolation, infection, RNA-seq generation) and downstream biological interpretation (GO/nearby-gene enrichment), per scope.md.
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 ⛓ 14d868614dd6
✎ 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
- 2026-06-30
- 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 paper tests whether four encephalitis-associated arboviruses (Zika, Mayaro, Oropouche, Chikungunya) modulate human endogenous retrovirus (HERV) expression in infected human primary astrocytes, and whether this modulation influences transcription of nearby genes.
- ★ The four arboviruses commonly induce upregulation of HERVs in human primary astrocytes, with 15 HERVs co-modulated by all four viruses, including highly upregulated HERV4_4q22.1 finding
- ★ Alphaviruses ChikV and MayV show more similar HERV modulation patterns (both upregulated and downregulated families) to each other than to OroV or ZikV, suggesting conserved viral-family-specific regulation finding
- ★ Upregulated HERVs are concentrated near differentially expressed genes (mostly within 10-50 kb), consistent with a transcription interference mechanism by which HERV activation regulates nearby gene expression mechanism
- ★ Protein-protein interaction network analysis shows 93 genes co-upregulated between MayV and ChikV, and 14 genes co-upregulated among ChikV, MayV and OroV, related to cell replication, cytoskeleton, vesicle traffic and antiviral response finding
- A user-friendly web database/interface was built to allow query of differentially expressed HERVs and nearby genes with GO/KEGG/Reactome enrichment resource
- HERV differential expression was estimated from RNA-seq using Trimmomatic, bowtie2 alignment to hg38, Telescope quantification, and DESeq2 statistical testing (adjusted p<0.1, |log2FC|>1) method
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| bulk RNA-seq | human primary astrocytes (from temporal lobectomy tissue) | Chikungunya virus (ChikV) infection, MOI 1 | differential HERV and gene expression | NextSeq 550 (NextSeq 500/550 High Output v2 Kit, 150 cycles) |
| bulk RNA-seq | human primary astrocytes | Mayaro virus (MayV) infection, MOI 1 | differential HERV and gene expression | NextSeq 550 |
| bulk RNA-seq | human primary astrocytes | Oropouche virus (OroV) infection, MOI 1 | differential HERV and gene expression | NextSeq 550 |
| bulk RNA-seq | human primary astrocytes | Zika virus (ZikV) infection, MOI 1 | differential HERV and gene expression (analyzed at 48 hpi) | NextSeq 550 |
| flow cytometry | human primary astrocytes | arbovirus infection (ChikV/MayV/OroV/ZikV) | percentage of infected cells (confirmation of infection) | — |
| immunofluorescence | human primary astrocytes | arbovirus infection (ChikV/MayV/OroV/ZikV) | viral protein detection / infectivity | — |
| protein-protein interaction network analysis | differentially expressed genes near DEHERVs from astrocyte RNA-seq (ChikV, MayV, OroV) | none (computational/bioinformatic analysis) | network connectivity, hub genes, betweenness/eigenvector centrality | Cytoscape 3.8.0 with BioGRID PPI database |
- ▲ 15 HERVs were commonly upregulated across all four arbovirus infections
- ▲ HERV4_4q22.1 was highly upregulated at similar levels across all four viruses
- ▲ 512 HERV elements were co-modulated by MayV and ChikV, far more than shared with other virus pairs 512 elements
- ▲ MayV and ChikV upregulated the same HERV families (HERVW, HARLEQUIN, PRIMAX, PABLA, MER41, HML4) in similar proportions; HUERSP3 and HUERSP8 were unique to ChikV upregulation
- – Upregulated HERVs are located up to 50 kb from nearby DEGs (majority within 10 kb), with some more distant correlations up to 260 kb (ChikV) and 320 kb (MayV) up to 320 kb
- ▲ 93 genes were commonly upregulated between MayV and ChikV networks, including replication, immune/antiviral response, cytoskeleton and ubiquitination genes 93 genes
- ▲ 14 genes were commonly upregulated among ChikV, MayV and OroV, including replication and antiviral response genes 14 genes
- – ZikV showed a lower number of significantly modulated HERVs at the analyzed timepoint (48 hpi), attributed to its slower replication rate in astrocytes compared to alphaviruses
- pvalue adjusted p < 0.1 (threshold for calling a HERV differentially expressed (DEH), via DESeq2)
- fold_change |log2(fold-change)| > 1 (threshold combined with adjusted p-value for DEH calling)
- count 15 HERVs (HERVs co-modulated (upregulated) by all four arboviruses)
- count 512 elements (HERVs co-modulated by MayV and ChikV)
- count 93 genes (genes common to MayV and ChikV PPI networks)
- count 14 genes (genes common to ChikV, MayV and OroV PPI networks)
- other up to 260 kb (ChikV) / 320 kb (MayV) (maximum distance of correlated upregulated HERV-gene pairs)
- count 0.5 CPM (minimum expression threshold for retaining HERVs in analysis)
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 re-analyzed RNA-seq data from human primary astrocytes infected with four arboviruses (ChikV, MayV, OroV, ZikV) to quantify differential expression of human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) using Telescope for quantification and DESeq2 for differential expression testing, applying an adjusted p-value and fold-change threshold to call elements differentially expressed. Results were further explored by correlating differentially expressed HERVs with nearby differentially expressed genes (from a prior published dataset) based on genomic distance, followed by Gene Ontology/KEGG/Reactome enrichment and protein-protein interaction network construction in Cytoscape using BioGRID interaction data.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| DESeq2 (Wald test, as implemented in R/Bioconductor DESeq2) | Differential expression of HERVs for each virus (ChikV, MayV, OroV, ZikV) vs. non-infected controls | RNA-seq performed on 2 × 9 samples; HERVs below 0.5 CPM were filtered before testing | not stated |
-
Differential expression significance was defined using a combined adjusted p-value (< 0.1) and fold-change (|log2FC| > 1) threshold from DESeq2's Wald test.↳ Could also: A likelihood ratio test (LRT) within DESeq2, or edgeR/limma-voom pipelines, could also be used for count-based differential expression testing — Different differential expression frameworks (DESeq2 Wald vs. LRT, edgeR, limma-voom) make different distributional assumptions and can be compared to assess robustness of the DEH calls, particularly useful when sample sizes are modest, as is common in RNA-seq of primary cell infections
-
The paper used an adjusted p-value threshold of 0.1 rather than the more conventional 0.05 to call HERVs differentially expressed.↳ Could also: A stricter adjusted p-value cutoff (e.g., 0.05) or reporting a range of thresholds with the corresponding number of DEHs at each could also be presented — Showing sensitivity of the DEH count to the chosen adjusted p-value cutoff can help readers gauge how threshold-dependent the reported overlaps (e.g., the 15 shared HERVs) are
-
The multiple-testing correction method for the DESeq2 analysis was not explicitly named in the text, though DESeq2 uses Benjamini-Hochberg FDR by default.↳ Could also: Explicitly stating the correction method (e.g., Benjamini-Hochberg) and reporting q-values or adjusted p-values directly in supplementary tables could also be included — Making the correction method explicit in the text, rather than relying on the software default, aids reproducibility and helps readers apply comparable thresholds when reanalyzing or comparing to other studies
-
Effect sizes were reported as log2 fold-change per HERV/gene, without accompanying measures of uncertainty such as standard error or confidence intervals for these estimates.↳ Could also: Reporting DESeq2's shrunken log2FC estimates along with their standard errors or 95% confidence intervals (e.g., via the lfcShrink function) could also be presented — Confidence intervals around fold-change estimates convey the precision of each estimate, which is particularly informative when comparing effect magnitudes across the four different viruses
-
Overlap of upregulated HERVs and genes across the four viruses was described using counts and Venn-style comparisons (e.g., 15 shared HERVs, 93 shared genes between MayV and ChikV).↳ Could also: A formal statistical test of overlap significance (e.g., hypergeometric test or Fisher's exact test for gene-set overlap) could also be applied — Testing whether the observed overlaps exceed what would be expected by chance, given the total number of DEHs/DEGs per virus, would add a quantitative measure to the qualitative similarity observed between viruses
-
Protein-protein interaction networks were built and described qualitatively (e.g., node centrality, connectivity, common genes) without formal statistical testing of network properties.↳ Could also: Network topology could also be evaluated against randomized/permuted networks (e.g., via permutation testing of centrality measures or modularity) to assess statistical significance of observed network features — Comparing observed network metrics to a null distribution generated from randomized networks can help quantify whether the connectivity patterns are distinguishable from chance given the network size and degree distribution
What was reproduced
The exact results taken into scope, with each reported value next to the value our attempt produced.
Scope — pmid-36423114
Paper: Castro et al. 2022, Viruses 14(11):2505. "Modulation of HERV Expression by Four Different Encephalitic Arboviruses during Infection of Human Primary Astrocytes." PMID 36423114 / PMC9694637 / DOI 10.3390/v14112505.
Nature of the reproduction (P16 — third-party tool on the paper's data)
This paper reuses a public RNA-seq dataset (SRA PRJNA662366, originally
generated by the same group, Souza et al.) and applies an existing third-party
bioinformatics stack to it. There is no authors' own analysis repo; the
"Code" link is the annotation database for the Telescope tool
(mlbendall/telescope_annotation_db). Per BRIEF rule 2 this is an equally valid
reproduction: we run the described pipeline (Trimmomatic → bowtie2 → Telescope →
DESeq2) on PRJNA662366 with the stated parameters and compare derived numbers.
Pipeline described in Methods (the pipeline to reproduce)
- Trimming: Trimmomatic (adapters + low-quality reads).
- Alignment: bowtie2,
--very-sensitive-local, up to 100 alignments reported (-k 100), genome hg38. - HERV/TE quantification: Telescope (default parameters) with the HERV
hg38 GTF from
mlbendall/telescope_annotation_db(buildHERV_rmsk.hg38.v2,transcripts.gtf). - Filtering: remove HERVs with expression < 0.5 CPM.
- Differential expression: DESeq2; DEH = adjusted p < 0.1 AND |log2FC| > 1. Each virus (ChikV, MayV, OroV, ZikV) vs Mock.
In scope (pipeline-derived results we attempt)
| id | reported result | source | pipeline |
|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | 15 HERVs upregulated by all four arboviruses (intersection), named in Table 1 | Table 1 / Results | full pipeline → DESeq2 intersect |
| C2 | HERV4_4q22.1 log2FC ChikV 4.520 / MayV 5.181 / OroV 5.665 / ZikV 4.734; q ≤ 7.63e-30 | Results §3 / Table 1 | DESeq2 per-virus |
| C3 | 512 elements co-modulated by MayV and ChikV (largest pairwise overlap) | Fig 1C / Results | DESeq2 per-virus ∩ |
| C4 | per-virus DEH counts (up/down), Fig 1A bar chart | Fig 1A | DESeq2 per-virus |
| C5 | total HERV loci passing CPM>0.5 filter (test universe) | Methods/Results | Telescope counts → CPM filter |
Primary targets: C1, C2, C3 (clearly numeric). C4/C5 are secondary (exact numbers not all printed in text; gradeable as partial where the paper only shows a figure).
Out of scope (not attempted — wet-lab / external / manual)
- Virus production, titration (PFU), astrocyte isolation/culture, MOI-1 infection, RNA extraction, library prep, sequencing (PRJNA662366 generation) — wet-lab.
- Gene-neighborhood / "nearby gene" enrichment & GO/pathway interpretation, protein-interaction or biological-narrative claims — downstream interpretation, attempted only if pipeline DEH sets reproduce.
- Any claim about HERV biology/causation — interpretation, not pipeline output.
Data
- PRJNA662366 — 18 paired-end bulk RNA-seq runs (SRR12610900–SRR12610917): 6 Mock (MockA1-3, MockB1-3), 3 ChikV, 3 MayV, 3 OroV, 3 ZikV. (matches paper's "2 × 9 samples"). Open access via ENA/SRA.
Compute plan
All heavy steps on «our HPC»/SLURM, inputs on «infra». Download (fastq + hg38 +
HERV GTF [git-LFS]) on front1. See reproduction/ scripts.
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.