Skip to content
LabsTrail

Reproducibility readiness

Scored 77 / 100

Read as a narrative review of a topic, without a systematic search, against SANRA.

The article is a comprehensive narrative review that thoroughly references published findings and clearly explains its aims and biological importance. It organizes findings into detailed summary tables and provides balanced reasoning regarding causality versus correlation in transposable element activation. As typical for a narrative review, it does not describe a systematic literature search strategy, and it notes limitations and knowledge gaps in general terms rather than evaluating methodological limitations of the review itself.

  1. The paper explains why the topic matters

    Shown
    “Ageing is a primary driver of disease, serving as the leading risk factor for chronic conditions such as cardiovascular disease, cancer, neurodegeneration and diabetes due to its pervasive impact on cellular and molecular systems [1–3].”
  2. The paper states the review's aims or questions

    Shown
    “In this review, we delve into the dynamic changes in the epigenome with ageing and relate them to mechanisms underlying TE regulation and reactivation. By exploring modern insights and emerging strategies, we illuminate the critical role of TEs in ageing and their potential as therapeutic targets.”
  3. The paper describes how the literature was searched: databases or sources, dates and search terms

    Missing
  4. The paper supports its key statements with references

    Missing

    The scorer claimed: Shown

    “Epigenetic alterations, including both DNA methylation (DNAme) and histone modifications, play a crucial role in regulating gene expression and maintaining genomic stability throughout life by orchestrating proper gene expression or repression in the epigenome [1,4].”

    The scorer quoted a passage that isn't in the paper's text, so the check counts as missing.

  5. The paper weighs the strength of the evidence it cites, rather than only listing it

    Shown
    “A significant knowledge gap remains in determining whether TE activation is a primary causal driver of ageing or merely a biomarker of broader epigenetic instability. While correlative evidence strongly links TE activation to age-related decline, definitive functional studies are required to”
  6. The paper presents relevant results of the studies it cites, such as outcomes or numbers

    Shown
    “Table 3. Repetitive and TE genomic content in model organisms used in ageing research. organism percentage of TE and repetitive region in genome references Saccharomyces cerevisiae 3.1% [219] Caenorhabditis elegans 12–16% [220] Drosophila melanogaster 3.86% [221] Danio rerio (zebrafish) 53% [179]”
  7. 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.”
  8. The paper says where the data behind the results can be found, or why they cannot be shared

    Shown
    “Data accessibility. This article has no additional data.”
  9. The paper says where the analysis code or scripts can be found, or that no custom code was written

    Doesn't apply
  10. The paper states who funded the work, or that it had no funding

    Shown
    “Funding. This work is supported by a USC Leonard Davis Biology of Aging PhD Fellowship to E.T. and R35 GM142395 to B.A.B.”
  11. The paper states the authors' competing interests, or that there are none

    Shown
    “Conflict of interests. We declare we have no competing interests.”
  12. The paper discusses the limitations of the study

    Partly shown
    “However, it is clear that more research is required to fully understand the relationship between ageing, heterochromatin and TEs.”