Machine learning reveals microbial interactions driving plastic degradation across plastisphere environments.
Part of the results reproduced; minor but material deviations remained.
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
- 🔴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
salvaged by watchdog from agreement.json (agent omitted ROOM_RESULT.json)
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.
✎ 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
- 2026-06-16
- Rubric version
- v1.0
- Assessed by
-
🤖 AI curator · claude (ai-curator room) · v1.0 · run #1 2026-06-19no human curator yet
- Last updated
- 2026-07-29
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: opusThe study tests whether different aquatic environments (ocean, surface water, wastewater) harbor distinct potential plastic-degrading bacteria (PDBs) with unique degradation capabilities, and whether these potential PDBs are associated with specific non-plastic-degrading bacteria (NDBs) that facilitate plastic degradation through ecological interactions, using 16S rRNA sequencing combined with machine learning.
- ★ Wastewater plastispheres harbor the most diverse and compositionally even microbial communities among the three habitats. finding
- ★ Potential PDBs are habitat-specific: Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, and Aquabacterium in wastewater; Flavobacterium and Alteromonas in ocean; Psychrobacter and Novosphingobium in surface waters. finding
- ★ Potential PDBs show consistent co-occurrence with diverse NDB taxa (e.g., Clostridium_sensu_stricto_5, Lachnospiraceae_UCG-001, Cloacibacterium), suggesting facilitative interactions such as redox modulation, nutrient exchange, and biofilm support. mechanism
- ★ Combining Pearson's correlation networks with Random Forest modeling effectively identifies key taxa and potential PDB-NDB ecological interactions. method
- ★ A unified QIIME2-based pipeline applied to publicly available 16S rRNA datasets enables cross-habitat comparison of plastisphere composition, matched against PlasticDB to define potential PDBs at genus level. resource
- ML application to plastisphere data is limited by taxonomic resolution, lack of functional validation, and insufficient integration of environmental metadata. finding
| Assay | System | Perturbation | Readout | Platform |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing (public NCBI SRA reanalysis) | Ocean plastisphere biofilm communities (marine plastics) | none (observational; plastic colonization in situ) | OTU-level microbial community composition and relative abundance | NCBI SRA datasets; QIIME2 v2023.2; DADA2; SILVA 138 classifier |
| 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing (public NCBI SRA reanalysis) | Wastewater plastisphere biofilm communities | none (observational; plastic colonization) | OTU-level microbial community composition and relative abundance | NCBI SRA datasets; QIIME2 v2023.2; DADA2; SILVA 138 classifier |
| 16S rRNA gene amplicon sequencing (public NCBI SRA reanalysis) | Surface water plastisphere biofilm communities (72 samples after QC) | none (observational; plastic colonization) | OTU-level microbial community composition and relative abundance | NCBI SRA datasets; QIIME2 v2023.2; DADA2; SILVA 138 classifier |
| Alpha diversity analysis (Shannon, Simpson, Chao1, Species Richness) | Plastisphere communities across ocean, surface water, wastewater | none | Diversity indices compared across environments | R; ANOVA |
| Beta diversity analysis (Bray-Curtis dissimilarity, PCoA) | Plastisphere communities across ocean, surface water, wastewater | none | Community composition differences among environments | R; vegan package (2.6-10); PERMANOVA with 999 permutations (adonis) |
| Potential PDB identification via database matching | OTU table from all habitats matched to PlasticDB | none | Genus-/phylum-level identification of potential plastic-degrading taxa | PlasticDB |
| Correlation network and machine learning analysis | Potential PDB vs NDB relative abundance profiles across environments | none | Pairwise correlations and key NDB features influencing PDB abundance | Pearson's correlation; Random Forest |
- ▲ Wastewater plastispheres were the most diverse and compositionally even communities relative to ocean and surface water.
- – Habitat-specific potential PDB genera identified (Pseudomonas, Acinetobacter, Aquabacterium in wastewater; Flavobacterium, Alteromonas in ocean; Psychrobacter, Novosphingobium in surface waters).
- – Consistent co-occurrence patterns between potential PDBs and NDB taxa (Clostridium_sensu_stricto_5, Lachnospiraceae_UCG-001, Cloacibacterium) detected by network and Random Forest analyses.
- – ANOVA revealed significant variation in microbial alpha diversity among the three environments.
- count 824 microbial species reported with plastic-degrading capabilities; 230 proteins involved in plastic breakdown (Known plastic degraders from literature (Gambarini et al., 2022))
- other up to 99.1% accuracy (ML classifiers predicting plastic-degrading microbes (Hemalatha et al., 2021))
- other 97% similarity threshold (OTU clustering with qiime vsearch cluster-features-de-novo)
- count 999 permutations (PERMANOVA (adonis) for beta diversity)
- count 72 samples (Surface water dataset after removal of low-quality sequences)
- other 460 million tons; 20-fold increase since 1964; ~91% unrecycled (Global plastic production and waste statistics (Introduction))
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 secondary analysis pooled nine publicly available 16S rRNA sequencing datasets (three per environment) to compare plastisphere microbial communities across ocean, surface water, and wastewater. Alpha diversity metrics were compared among environments using ANOVA, and beta diversity was assessed with Bray–Curtis dissimilarity followed by PCoA ordination and PERMANOVA. Associations between potential plastic-degrading bacteria (PDB) and non-plastic-degrading bacteria (NDB) were explored with Pearson correlation and Random Forest modeling. Results were visualized with box plots and jitter plots; the full results section was not included in the supplied text.
| Test | Applied to | n | Assumptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| one-way ANOVA | comparison of alpha diversity metrics (Shannon, Simpson, Chao1, Species Richness) across ocean, surface water, and wastewater plastisphere communities | — | not stated |
| PERMANOVA (adonis, vegan, 999 permutations) | beta diversity differences in Bray–Curtis dissimilarity among ocean, wastewater, and surface water plastisphere communities | — | not stated |
| Pearson's correlation | linear associations between potential PDB and NDB relative abundances | — | not stated |
| Random Forest | identification of key NDB features influencing potential PDB abundance across environments | — | na |
| Principal Coordinates Analysis (PCoA) | ordination of Bray–Curtis dissimilarity matrix for beta diversity visualization | — | na |
-
Alpha diversity metrics were compared across three environments using ANOVA↳ Could also: Kruskal-Wallis test followed by post-hoc Dunn's test with FDR correction could also compare alpha diversity across groups — Diversity indices from 16S rRNA data are often zero-inflated and non-normally distributed, particularly with unequal group sizes; a non-parametric approach makes no distributional assumption and is widely used for this comparison in microbiome studies
-
Multiple alpha diversity metrics (Shannon, Simpson, Chao1, Species Richness) were each tested separately without a stated multiplicity correction↳ Could also: Applying a Benjamini-Hochberg FDR correction across the family of ANOVA tests would also control the false discovery rate — Testing four correlated diversity metrics simultaneously increases the family-wise type I error rate; a multiplicity correction clarifies which comparisons remain significant after accounting for the number of tests performed
-
PDB–NDB associations were quantified with Pearson's correlation on relative abundance data↳ Could also: Spearman's rank correlation could also quantify monotonic associations between PDB and NDB taxa — Relative abundance data from amplicon sequencing are typically zero-inflated and non-normally distributed; Spearman's correlation requires no normality assumption and is less sensitive to extreme values, and is widely used for this type of co-occurrence analysis
-
Community composition was visualized and tested using Bray–Curtis dissimilarity with PCoA and PERMANOVA↳ Could also: Non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) combined with PERMANOVA could also serve as the ordination approach — NMDS does not assume a linear relationship between dissimilarity and ordination distance, which makes it broadly applicable to community data; it is a common complement or alternative to PCoA in microbiome studies
-
Random Forest was used to identify key NDB features associated with PDB abundance↳ Could also: Sparse penalized regression (e.g., LASSO or elastic net) could also identify predictive NDB taxa — Penalized regression provides coefficient estimates with a natural effect-direction interpretation and can handle high-dimensional compositional data; it offers a complementary approach to Random Forest variable importance, which does not distinguish positive from negative associations
-
Datasets from nine separate studies were combined into a single analysis without a stated batch-correction step or mixed-effects modeling of study origin↳ Could also: A linear mixed-effects model or PERMANOVA with study/batch as a covariate could also account for between-study technical heterogeneity — Pooling 16S rRNA datasets generated with different primers, sequencing platforms, and laboratory protocols introduces technical variation; explicitly modeling study as a random effect or blocking factor is a standard approach to reduce confounding from inter-study batch effects
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.
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.
This is a strong reproduction: every concrete reported number (three PCA variances, the correlation pipeline, the 9 named top-interactor genera) reproduces from the authors' own shipped tables to printed/machine precision, so data identity and endpoint comparability are clean (q1/q2 green). The substantive issue is authors'-side: the Fig 4 text overstates interaction-partner counts — 'more than five' is exactly 5 (C6) and 'more than six' is exactly 4 (C7) per the authors' own regenerated PDB_NDB_corr.csv, with Stenoxybacter's avg r=0.646 also below the stated >0.65. These overstated counts are not derivable from the shared data (q5 yellow, fabrication-check flagged) and the deviation sits in the results/claim layer rather than input preprocessing (q3/q4 red). Severity is moderate — magnitude inflated but the qualitative direction (these genera are the top interactors) and the central thesis hold — so the core claim is confirmed in limited form and overall quality is solid-with-explainable-deviation (q6/q7/q8 yellow).
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.