Reproducibility readiness
Scored 82 / 100
Read as a narrative review of a topic, without a systematic search, against SANRA.
The article is a well-structured narrative review that thoroughly contextualizes its importance, states its aims clearly, provides extensive citations, and critically evaluates the strength and contradictions of existing biological evidence. It also includes explicit statements regarding ethics, data accessibility, funding, and competing interests. However, as is typical for narrative reviews, it does not describe literature search parameters (such as databases, search dates, or search terms) and does not state limitations of its own review process or scope.
The paper's text was shortened to fit the scorer, so its end may not have been read. A statement there, such as funding or competing interests, may have lost its point.
The paper explains why the topic matters
Shown“Understanding how cells regulate endogenous dsRNA is crucial for defining disease mechanisms and developing new therapeutic strategies.”
The paper states the review's aims or questions
Shown“This review describes our current understanding of how cells achieve self-tolerance through the active regulation of endogenous RNA.”
The paper describes how the literature was searched: databases or sources, dates and search terms
MissingThe paper supports its key statements with references
Shown“The obligatory export of host RNA creates a core immunological challenge: distinguishing ‘self’-derived cytosolic RNA from foreign viral nucleic acids [2].”
The paper weighs the strength of the evidence it cites, rather than only listing it
Shown“It is unresolved whether retention is causally upstream of sensing or merely correlated with it, because no genetic tool has yet separated the localization of a dsRNA from the transcriptional and editing activities of the proteins that retain it.”
The paper presents relevant results of the studies it cites, such as outcomes or numbers
Shown“Early biochemical studies defined 33 base pairs as the minimal dsRNA length required for activation, with maximal activation observed for duplexes ≥79 base pairs [94], consistent with a model in which a single dsRNA scaffold promotes PKR dimerization.”
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.”
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.”
The paper says where the analysis code or scripts can be found, or that no custom code was written
Doesn't applyThe paper states who funded the work, or that it had no funding
Shown“Funding. Work in our laboratories was/is supported by: National Health and Medical Research Council Australia (NHMRC; GNT1183553 to C.W. and J.H-F.; GNT1182453 to J.H-F.; GNT2018098 to C.W.; GNT2026053 to S.D.); the NHMRC Centre of Excellence in Nucleic Acid Sensing (GNT2035500; C.W., S.D.); the”
The paper states the authors' competing interests, or that there are none
Shown“Conflict of interest declaration. CRW is a consultant for AIRNA and adviser for Mangrove Therapeutics Inc. All other authors declare that they have no competing interests.”
The paper discusses the limitations of the study
Missing