Comprehensive Genomic and Phenotypic Characterization of Escherichia coli O78:H9 Strain HPVN24 Isolated from Diarrheic Poultry in Vietnam.
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
- ✓Reported values are derivable from the shared data
- ✓Any deviation was negligible
- ✓The central claim held under reproduction
- 🟡A deviation arose in the data or preprocessing
- 🟡A deviation was attributed to the published material
- 🟡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 and reproduces 1:1 on the deterministic typing/assembly-metric outputs. Ran QUAST/mlst/ECTyper/ABRicate on the paper's own data (deposited assembly GCA_052827245.1 + raw reads SRR34216250, SPAdes) via «our HPC» «job». EXACT: N50 50829, L50 29, contigs>200bp 495, contigs>=1000bp 222, MLST ST23, serotype O78:H9, AMR dfrA1 & blaEC-13. Within-tol: GC 50.58 vs 50.57, genome size (diff = the 217 sub-200bp contigs NCBI drops; 712->495). Partial: 3/4 plasmid replicons (pSE11 absent), virulence (major iron/adhesion/curli systems present; iuc/hlyE/iss/bcs/gfc not in VFDB hits), gyrA/parC point mutations (ABRicate is acquired-gene BLAST, no SNP caller). Internal consistency strong -> no fabrication signal. NOT attempted (80/20): BUSCO 432/440, Prokka/Bakta CDS counts, CARD-RGI point mutations, phylogenetics/pangenome/COG/KEGG figures, MIC phenotypes (wet-lab/manual/version-sensitive).
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 86assessed: 2026-06-15 ⛓ 3eb528b66c38
✎ 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 2026-06-16no 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: opusThis study aimed to comprehensively characterize the phenotypic features, antibiotic susceptibility profile, and whole-genome sequence of avian pathogenic Escherichia coli strain HPVN24 isolated from diarrheic broiler chickens in Hai Phong, Vietnam, to address the gap in genomic characterization of highly virulent, multidrug-resistant O78 APEC strains circulating in Vietnam.
- ★ HPVN24 is an avian pathogenic E. coli serotype O78:H9, sequence type ST23, with a 5.05 Mb genome and 50.57% GC content. finding
- ★ HPVN24 is a multidrug-resistant strain, exhibiting resistance to trimethoprim, ampicillin, and ciprofloxacin with predicted resistance to 18 antibiotic classes and particularly strong fluoroquinolone resistance. finding
- ★ HPVN24 is highly virulent, displaying β-hemolytic activity and harboring a broad repertoire of virulence genes for adhesion, iron acquisition, hemolysin production, and stress response. finding
- ★ HPVN24 clusters phylogenetically with O78:H9 strains from poultry in other regions, suggesting potential cross-population transmission. finding
- The genome encodes multiple secretion systems (T2SS most complete, T4SS ~75%, T1SS ~65%, T6SS least complete) plus Sec-SRP and Tat pathways. mechanism
- Whole-genome sequencing combined with phenotypic assays and antibiotic susceptibility profiling characterizes the APEC strain. method
- HPVN24 encodes multiple iron acquisition systems including enterobactin, salmochelin, aerobactin, and yersiniabactin. mechanism
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strain identification by MALDI-TOF mass spectrometry | E. coli isolates from diarrheic broiler chickens, Hai Phong, Vietnam | none | species identification | MALDI-TOF Biotyper (Bruker) |
| Hemolysis assay on blood agar | E. coli HPVN24 vs γ-hemolysis reference strain | none | hemolytic activity (zone of hemolysis) | 5% sheep blood agar plate |
| Antibiotic susceptibility / MIC testing | E. coli HPVN24 | antibiotic exposure (CI, TC, DC, TS, AM) | inhibition zone and MIC breakpoints | E-test strips (bioMérieux); MHA plates; CLSI M100 2023 / EUCAST 2023 |
| Whole-genome sequencing | E. coli HPVN24 genomic DNA | none | genome sequence reads | Illumina HiSeq 3000; GeneJET Genomic DNA Purification Kit; NanoDrop Lite |
| De novo genome assembly and quality assessment | HPVN24 sequencing reads | none | contigs, N50/L50, completeness (QUAST, BUSCO) | SPAdes, Ragtag, QUAST v5.3.0, BUSCO v5.8.0 (Enterobacterales_odb10) |
| MLST and serotyping | HPVN24 genome | none | sequence type and O/H antigen serotype | SeroTypeFinder v2.0, ChTyper v1.0, ECTyper; Center for Genomic Epidemiology |
| Virulence and antimicrobial resistance gene detection | HPVN24 genome | none | virulence and resistance gene hits (≥90% identity) | VirulenceFinder v2.0, ABRicate v1.0.1, CARD-RGI, ResFinder, VFDB |
| Comparative genomics and phylogenetic analysis (ANI, core-genome ML tree) | 22 E. coli strains incl. HPVN24 and outgroup CFT073 | none | ANI values, phylogenetic clustering | FastANI/ANIclustermap v2.0.1, progressiveMauve v2.4.0, RAxML-ng, iTOL |
- ▲ HPVN24 showed the strongest hemolytic activity (β-hemolysis) among hemolysin-producing isolates
- – No inhibition zones around trimethoprim and ampicillin (0 mm); minimal around ciprofloxacin (1 mm) and tetracycline (1 ± 0.5 mm); largest with doxycycline (10 ± 0.5 mm) 0–10 mm
- – Draft genome assembled at 5,053,087 bp with 50.57% GC content 5.05 Mb
- – BUSCO identified 432/440 complete genes (431 single-copy, 1 duplicate), 7 fragmented, 1 missing 432/440
- – Strain identified as serotype O78:H9 (wzx allele 3, wzy 6, fliC 1) and sequence type ST23
- ▲ Genome predicted resistance to 18 antibiotic classes with particularly strong fluoroquinolone resistance 18 classes
- ▲ Most abundant COG categories were carbohydrate transport/metabolism (~400 genes) and amino acid transport/metabolism (~370 genes) ~400 and ~370 genes
- – HPVN24 encodes complete Type I fimbrial operon (fimH allele 35) and multiple iron acquisition systems (enterobactin, salmochelin, aerobactin, yersiniabactin)
- count 5,053,087 bp genome length (draft assembly total length)
- other 50.57% GC content (genome GC content)
- count 432/440 complete BUSCO genes (core single-copy ortholog completeness)
- other N50/L50 = 50829/29; 10X coverage (assembly contiguity)
- count 712 contigs >=0 bp; 495 >200 bp; 222 >=1000 bp (assembly contig counts)
- other MIC: CI 12 µg/mL, TC 96 µg/mL, DC 11 µg/mL (minimum inhibitory concentration breakpoints)
- count Prokka 4728 features (4646 CDS, 77 tRNAs, 4 rRNAs); Bakta 5022 features (4636 CDS, 95 tRNAs) (genome annotation)
- other 99.52% reads mapped; 95.43% K-mer compliance; duplication ratio 1.002 (assembly quality metrics)
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 is a single-strain genomic characterization study with no formal inferential statistics; the approach combines phenotypic assays (hemolysis on blood agar, MIC determination via E-test) with whole-genome sequencing and a suite of bioinformatics pipelines for assembly, annotation, and comparative genomics. Antibiotic resistance was classified by CLSI M100 2023 breakpoints, and phylogenetic relationships were inferred by maximum likelihood (RAxML-ng) on a core-genome alignment across a curated 22-strain panel. All results are reported descriptively as gene counts, BUSCO completeness fractions, KEGG pathway completeness scores, and MIC values; no p-values, confidence intervals, or formal effect sizes are presented.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| MIC determination via E-test with CLSI M100 2023 breakpoint classification (EUCAST 2023 as secondary verification) | Antibiotic susceptibility profiling of five agents: ciprofloxacin, tetracycline, doxycycline, trimethoprim, ampicillin | 1 strain (HPVN24) | not stated |
| BUSCO completeness assessment (Enterobacterales_odb10, Prodigal gene prediction) | Genome assembly quality evaluation | 1 genome assembly | na |
| Average Nucleotide Identity (ANI) analysis via FastANI | Comparative genomics across 22 E. coli strains | 22 strains | not stated |
| Maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree construction (RAxML-ng) on core-genome alignment (progressiveMauve) | Phylogenetic analysis of HPVN24 relative to 21 comparator strains plus outgroup CFT073 | 22 strains (plus 1 outgroup) | not stated |
| Gene identity threshold filtering (≥90% identity cutoff) | Virulence and resistance gene detection via VirulenceFinder, ABRicate (VFDB and ResFinder), and CARD-RGI | 1 genome | not stated |
| Pan-genome analysis (BPGA v1.3 with Usearch 50% cutoff; Roary v3.13.0 with 80% BLAST+ cutoff) | Core/soft-core/shell/cloud gene distribution and new gene accumulation across studied strains | not stated explicitly for BPGA; same comparative panel for Roary | not stated |
-
Short-read Illumina HiSeq 3000 sequencing was used, yielding a draft assembly of 712 contigs↳ Could also: Long-read sequencing (Oxford Nanopore or PacBio) or a hybrid short-read + long-read assembly strategy could also be used — Long-read approaches can span repetitive elements and resolve complete plasmid sequences and genomic islands into a closed chromosome, which would allow more definitive characterization of mobile genetic elements carrying virulence and resistance determinants
-
Phylogenetic inference was performed with maximum likelihood (RAxML-ng) without reported branch support values or substitution model details in the main text↳ Could also: Bootstrap resampling (e.g., 1000 replicates reported on branches) or Bayesian inference (e.g., MrBayes) could also be applied — Reporting branch support values allows readers to assess topological confidence directly from the figure; Bayesian approaches additionally provide posterior probabilities and naturally incorporate substitution model uncertainty
-
Pan-genome analysis was performed with two tools using different identity cutoffs (BPGA at 50%, Roary at 80%), without a stated rationale for the differing thresholds↳ Could also: A single consistently justified cutoff, or a sensitivity analysis across identity thresholds, could also be reported — Different cutoffs can yield substantially different core vs. accessory genome boundaries; documenting the rationale for each threshold or showing threshold sensitivity helps readers evaluate how cutoff choice influences pan-genome size and gene-sharing estimates
-
Inhibition zone diameters were reported with ± values (e.g., '1 ± 0.5 mm') without specifying whether these represent SD, SEM, or range, and without stating the number of technical replicates↳ Could also: Explicit statement of the dispersion measure type and replicate number (e.g., 'mean ± SD, n = 3 independent readings') could also be included — Specifying the dispersion measure and replicate count allows readers to interpret measurement variability; for E-test MIC determinations, even a single determination is common practice but stating it explicitly supports reproducibility assessment
-
The 22-strain comparative panel was assembled by opportunistic selection from NCBI with geographic diversity as the criterion↳ Could also: A systematically sampled panel — or a recombination-aware phylogenetic method (e.g., ClonalFrameML, gubbins) — could also be applied — Recombination-aware approaches distinguish vertical descent from horizontal gene transfer, which is particularly relevant for interpreting whether observed clustering of MDR O78:H9 strains reflects clonal spread versus convergent acquisition of mobile resistance elements
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.
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.
All directly-comparable, deterministic outputs reproduced exactly or within rounding (N50, L50, contig counts, GC%, genome size after standard NCBI filtering, MLST ST23, serotype O78:H9, AMR dfrA1 and blaEC-13), and the central genomic characterization holds from both the deposited assembly and an independent reassembly of the raw reads. The remaining partial matches — 3/4 plasmid replicons, a subset of virulence genes, and undetected gyrA/parC point mutations — sit on our side (different databases, and ABRicate's lack of a SNP caller), not on the authors' or data-availability side. Internal consistency is strong with no fabrication signal; severity is negligible, so the only reason this is not flat green is the genuinely incomplete reproduction of the secondary claims.
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.