Scored 80 / 100

Read as a laboratory study of cells, tissues, molecules or microbes, or of invertebrates such as flies or worms, against MDAR.

The study provides comprehensive reporting of experimental reagents, plasmids, software, statistical tests, data availability, and funding. Replicates are noted with sample sizes in figures, but the paper does not specify whether they represent biological or technical replicates. Limitations are touched upon as open mechanistic questions rather than systematic critiques of the experimental design, and no blinding is reported for visual phenotypic scoring.

1. The paper identifies key resources (antibodies, cell lines, organisms, plasmids) by supplier and catalogue number or RRID

   Shown

   “mouse anti-V5-Tag clone SV5-Pk1 BioRad MCA1360”

2. The paper names the software, with versions, used for the analysis

   Shown

   “GraphPad Prism 10 https://www.graphpad.com”

3. The paper says how cell lines were authenticated and tested for mycoplasma

   Doesn't apply

4. The paper states the number of replicates and whether they are biological or technical

   Partly shown

   “(means ± standard deviation (s.d.), n = 4)”

5. The paper names the statistical methods used for each analysis

   Shown

   “Significance was calculated by a two-way ANOVA followed by Dunnett’s multiple comparisons test.”

6. The paper says how participants, animals or samples were randomly allocated, and by what method

   Doesn't apply

7. The paper says who was blinded (participants, carers, assessors, analysts) and how, or that no one was

   Missing

8. The paper reports the sex of the animals, people or cells studied, or why sex was not considered

   Doesn't apply

9. The paper names the ethics approval for work on people or animals, and the consent of the people studied

   Shown

   “Ethics. This work did not require ethical approval from a human subject or animal welfare committee.”

10. The paper says where the data behind the results can be found, or why they cannot be shared

    Shown

    “Data accessibility. Mass spectrometry data associated with the manuscript are available in supplementary material as supplementary data 1 and supplementary data 2 [106].”

11. The paper says where the analysis code or scripts can be found, or that no custom code was written

    Doesn't apply

12. The paper states who funded the work, or that it had no funding

    Shown

    “Funding. This work was supported by Cancer Research UK (Grant nos. C5759/A20971 and C5759/A27412).”

13. The paper states the authors' competing interests, or that there are none

    Shown

    “Conflict of interest declaration. We declare we have no competing interests.”

14. The paper discusses the limitations of the study

    Partly shown

    “It remains to be determined whether PP2A-B56 prevents premature mitotic entry by inhibiting Cdc25, either directly by dephosphorylation of CDK sites or indirectly through dephosphorylation and activation of CDC14Flp1 , or through a combination of both mechanisms.”