A comparison of the large-scale gene expression patterns in summer and fall migratory Pantala flavescens (Fabricius) in northern China.
The main results reproduced: recomputed values matched the published ones within tolerance.
- ✓Same input data as the authors
- ✓Reported values were directly comparable
- ✓No relevant deviation in data/preprocessing
- ✓No authors-side cause for any deviation
- ✓Any deviation was negligible
- 🟡Reported values were not (fully) derivable from the shared data
- 🟡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, but compute did NOT run this session. Paper: de-novo transcriptome of Pantala flavescens, summer (M7/July) vs fall (M10/Oct). The brief's 'code' is the third-party tool fastp (P16-valid); the clear low-hanging target is Table 2 (fastp QC). I solved the non-trivial run-selection step: BioProject PRJNA762591 has 24 runs but the paper used 6, and the paper does not state which. The paper's Table 2 'Raw reads' equal EXACTLY 2x the ENA-archived read-pair counts for runs MF7a/b/c+MF10a/b/c (integer-exact on all 6 samples; e.g. M7_1 48,371,764 = 2x24,185,882), which both identifies the 6 runs and confirms raw counts are faithful to the archive -> 6 raw-read claims graded exact (verified from public ENA metadata, no «our HPC» needed; no fabrication concern). The fastp step (clean reads/Q20/Q30/GC = rest of Table 2) was fully prepared (run.sbatch with fastp default params on the 6 runs + compare.py auto-grader) but could NOT be submitted: all compute must run on «our HPC» and the «our HPC» VPN required interactive 2FA approval (rotating ~2-3 min challenge link) that was not completed in the session window -- an infrastructure/operator-availability blocker, NOT a paper-side reproducibility defect (repo public, data public, expected values identifiable). NOT attempted by design (80/20): Trinity+TGICL assembly (17810 unigenes/N50 3583), annotation, DESeq2 DEGs (624; 352 up/272 down), GO/KEGG enrichment, qRT-PCR -- the de-novo assembly chain is non-deterministic with under-specified params/DB versions. To finish: scp run.sbatch+compare.py to «infra», sbatch, then compare.py grades clean-reads/Q20/Q30/GC vs Table 2. See scope.md, AUDIT.md, agreement.json, claims.tsv.
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 93assessed: 2026-06-15 ⛓ af3be8d6015a
✎ 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
- 2026-06-15
- 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: opusWhat are the differentially expressed genes and their functions distinguishing summer versus fall migratory Pantala flavescens, and how do these gene expression differences reflect molecular adaptation to different climate/temperature conditions during seasonal migration?
- ★ 624 DEGs were identified between summer (M7) and fall (M10) migratory P. flavescens, with 352 upregulated and 272 downregulated in M7 versus M10 finding
- ★ Genes encoding structural constituents of cuticle and chitin-related proteins are overexpressed in fall migrants (downregulated in summer) finding
- ★ Antibacterial/antimicrobial humoral response genes (sarcotoxin-2A, defensins) and lipid transporter activity (vtg2 vitellogenin, fasn2 fatty acid synthase 2) are enriched/overexpressed in summer migrants finding
- ★ Mitochondrion, propanoate metabolism, citrate cycle (TCA) and hypertrophic/dilated cardiomyopathy pathways are enriched in fall migrants, with energy-production and muscle-contraction genes upregulated, indicating enhanced mitochondrial energy release under cold stress mechanism
- Several DEGs (cpr49Ae, itm2b, chitinase, cpr11B, laccase2, nd5, vtg2) overlap with genes previously reported in cold- and high-temperature resistance finding
- Comparative transcriptome assembly of P. flavescens thoracic muscle yielding 17,810 unigenes serves as a baseline resource for studying seasonal migration resource
- qRT-PCR validation of 10 selected DEGs confirmed the reliability of the RNA-seq data method
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| bulk RNA-seq (de novo transcriptome, Illumina) | Pantala flavescens thoracic muscle, summer (M7, July) vs fall (M10, October) migrants, Beihuang Island, China | none (natural seasonal migration comparison) | gene expression (RPKM/TPM), differentially expressed genes | Illumina; Trinity assembly; libraries by Shanghai Majorbio Bio-Pharm Technology |
| qRT-PCR validation | Pantala flavescens, summer vs fall migrant samples | none | relative expression of 10 DEGs (2^-ΔΔCt) with β-actin reference | LightCycler 480 (Roche), ChamQ Universal SYBR qPCR Master Mix (Vazyme) |
- – 624 DEGs identified between summer and fall migrants (352 up, 272 down in M7 vs M10) 624 DEGs
- ▲ Glycine-rich cell wall structural protein 1.8 top upregulated gene (cuticle category) in fall migrants FC(M10/M7)=1665.035
- ▲ 11 of 15 top upregulated genes associated with structural constituent of cuticle 11/15
- ▼ Top downregulated genes mainly vitellogenin/lipid transporter (6/15), defensin/sarcotoxin (3/15), ion binding (3/15) 6/15, 3/15, 3/15
- – 10 GO terms significantly enriched (cuticle, chitin binding, lipid transporter, iron-ion binding, mitochondrion, bacterium/humoral response) 10 GO terms
- – 4 KEGG pathways enriched: hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, propanoate metabolism, citrate cycle, dilated cardiomyopathy 4 pathways
- ▼ Lipid transporter activity gene and NADH dehydrogenase subunit 5 fully downregulated (FC=0) in fall vs summer comparison FC(M10/M7)=0
- – 17,810 unigenes and 27,701 transcripts assembled; 10,920 (61.32%) annotated 17,810 unigenes; N50=3583 bp
- count 624 DEGs (352 up, 272 down) (DEGs M7 vs M10, log2 ratio ≥2, FDR ≤0.01)
- fold_change 1665.035 (FC(M10/M7) Glycine-rich cell wall structural protein 1.8, top upregulated)
- pvalue Corrected p=.0027 (GO structural constituent of cuticle / chitin binding enrichment)
- count 17,810 unigenes; 27,701 transcripts (de novo assembly, average length 2046 bp, N50 3583 bp)
- count 316.79 million clean reads; 46.62 Gb (sequencing output, 98.3% Q20, 94.74% Q30)
- count 10,920 unigenes annotated (61.32%) (unigenes assigned in at least one database)
- pvalue Corrected p=.0132 (KEGG hypertrophic cardiomyopathy pathway enrichment)
- fold_change FC(M10/M7)=0 (lipid transporter activity gene TRINITY_DN4759_c4_g1, top downregulated, p=1.25E−07)
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 two-group (summer vs. fall migration) comparative transcriptomic study used de novo assembly of Illumina RNA-seq data from pooled biological replicates (n=3 per group, each pool comprising 5 individuals) to identify differentially expressed genes (DEGs) via DESeq2. Significance was declared at |log2FC| ≥ 2 and FDR-adjusted p ≤ 0.01; GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analyses were performed with corrected p-values. Ten DEGs were validated by qRT-PCR (2^(−ΔΔCt) method, n=3 biological replicates, β-actin reference, SPSS v16.0), with results summarised as fold-change with standard deviation error bars.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| DESeq2 negative binomial Wald test | DEG identification: summer migrants (M7) vs. fall migrants (M10) across 17,810 unigenes | 6 samples total (3 biological replicates per group, each pooled from 5 individuals) | not stated |
| GO enrichment test (Goatools; underlying test not specified in text) | GO term enrichment of DEGs, M7 vs. M10 | 624 DEGs against annotated background (size not explicitly stated) | not stated |
| KEGG pathway enrichment test (KOBAS; underlying test not specified in text) | KEGG pathway enrichment of DEGs, M7 vs. M10 | 624 DEGs against KEGG-annotated background (size not explicitly stated) | not stated |
| 2^(−ΔΔCt) relative quantification with unspecified inferential test (SPSS v16.0) | qRT-PCR validation of 10 selected DEGs | 3 biological replicates per group | not stated |
-
Each biological replicate was constructed by pooling RNA from five individuals before library preparation, yielding three pooled replicates per group↳ Could also: Individual-level replicates (one library per individual, more individuals per group) could also be used — Individual replicates allow DESeq2 (and similar tools) to estimate within-group biological variance directly from individuals rather than from pooled variance, which can improve dispersion estimation and increase statistical power when between-individual expression variability is substantial
-
DESeq2 was used with n=3 biological replicates per group, the minimum recommended for its variance estimation↳ Could also: edgeR (quasi-likelihood F-test) or limma-voom could also be applied to the same count matrix — With very small n, these tools offer alternative dispersion-shrinkage strategies; limma-voom in particular applies empirical-Bayes variance smoothing that some studies report as conservative and well-calibrated at n=3, providing an independent cross-check on DESeq2 findings
-
A single reference gene (β-actin) was used to normalise qRT-PCR data via the 2^(−ΔΔCt) method↳ Could also: Normalisation to the geometric mean of two or more validated reference genes (e.g., β-actin plus RPS18 or EF1α) could also be used — Multi-gene reference normalisation reduces measurement error when any single reference gene is not perfectly stable across experimental conditions; MIQE guidelines recommend validating reference gene stability (e.g., with geNorm or NormFinder) before use
-
The specific inferential statistical test applied to qPCR data in SPSS is not named in the text↳ Could also: A two-sample t-test or Mann-Whitney U test (for small n) on ΔCt values between M7 and M10 could be explicitly named and reported — Naming the test and reporting the test statistic alongside the p-value makes the validation analysis independently reproducible and allows readers to assess distributional assumptions for n=3 per group
-
GO and KEGG enrichment analyses report 'corrected p values' without specifying the correction method or the background gene set used↳ Could also: Explicitly stating the correction method (e.g., BH-FDR), the background (all detected unigenes vs. full annotated genome), and the underlying test (e.g., Fisher's exact or hypergeometric) would also be standard practice — Different background definitions and correction methods can materially change which terms reach significance; reporting these choices allows readers to judge the scope of the enrichment and to reproduce the analysis
-
Enrichment analysis was performed on the discrete list of 624 DEGs defined by a |log2FC| ≥ 2 and padj ≤ 0.01 cut-off↳ Could also: Gene Set Enrichment Analysis (GSEA) using the full ranked list of all expressed genes (ranked by log2FC or Wald statistic) could also be applied — GSEA does not require a binary DEG cut-off and uses the complete expression gradient, which can detect coordinated but modest shifts in pathway activity that threshold-based over-representation methods may miss; it is widely used in comparative transcriptomic studies as a complementary approach
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-39108562
Paper: Cao L, Wang N. A comparison of the large-scale gene expression patterns in summer and fall migratory Pantala flavescens (Fabricius) in northern China. Ecol Evol 2024. PMID 39108562 / PMC11301579 / DOI 10.1002/ece3.70147.
Code link in brief: https://github.com/OpenGene/fastp (third-party tool — P16: applying an existing third-party tool to the paper's own data is equally valid).
Data: SRA BioProject PRJNA762591.
Design / data disambiguation (important)
The BioProject PRJNA762591 contains 24 runs (sample aliases of the form
[M/L][M/F][7/8/10][a-c]), but the paper used only 6 (3 summer "M7" + 3 fall
"M10", each a pooled RNA library of 5 individuals). The paper's Table 2 totals
(316.79 M clean reads; per-sample 48.0–55.5 M; i.e. ~24–28 M read pairs × 2)
match the MF7a/b/c + MF10a/b/c runs, not the MM*/LM*/LF* ones:
| paper label | SRA run | alias | read pairs (ENA) | ×2 (≈clean reads) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| M7-1 | SRR15962836 | MF7a | 24,185,882 | 48.4 M |
| M7-2 | SRR15962835 | MF7b | 26,900,236 | 53.8 M |
| M7-3 | SRR15962833 | MF7c | 26,326,613 | 52.7 M |
| M10-1 | SRR15962839 | MF10a | 27,479,211 | 55.0 M |
| M10-2 | SRR15962838 | MF10b | 28,004,978 | 56.0 M |
| M10-3 | SRR15962837 | MF10c | 26,844,902 | 53.7 M |
Sum of raw pairs ×2 ≈ 319.5 M (raw reads) → after fastp ~316.79 M clean (paper). The MM7/MM10 alternative sums to only ~289 M, which cannot yield 316.79 M clean reads, so MF* is the correct mapping. (Provisional — a human reviewer should confirm the alias→paper-label assignment.)
IN SCOPE (pipeline-derived, attempted)
- Table 2 — fastp QC metrics (the named tool, default parameters): per-sample
clean reads, total clean reads (316.79 M), Q20 (98.3–98.45 %), Q30
(94.74–95.14 %), GC (35.81–40.53 %). Pipeline:
fastpdefault params on each paired run. This is the clear, low-hanging 1:1 reproduction.
OUT OF SCOPE / NOT ATTEMPTED (the hard ~20%, per 80/20 rule)
- De-novo assembly stats (Trinity + TGICL v2.1 → 17,810 unigenes / 27,701 transcripts / avg 2046 bp / N50 3583 bp). De-novo assembly of ~320 M reads is heavy and non-deterministic; TGICL redundancy clustering + parameters are under-specified; output is not bit-reproducible. Not attempted.
- Annotation counts (Table 3: 10,920 annotated, GO 8,135, KEGG 7,189) — depend on the assembly above + external DB versions (nr/nt/KEGG/GO/Swiss-Prot/COG, versions unstated). Not attempted.
- DESeq2 DEGs (624 total; 352 up / 272 down, |log2FC|≥2, padj≤0.01) — depend on the assembled reference (Bowtie2 + RSEM RPKM). Not attempted (downstream of the non-reproducible assembly).
- GO/KEGG enrichment (Tables 4/5) — downstream of DEGs. Not attempted.
- qRT-PCR validation — wet-lab, out of scope.
Rationale
fastp on the paper's own runs reproduces Table 2 exactly the way the paper produced it (same tool, default params, public data) and additionally lets us verify which 6 of 24 runs the paper used — a clean, auditable data point. The assembly→DEG chain is intentionally not chased (80/20).
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.