⚗️ Stretch concept — an augmented lab agent space. A preprint dropped into a Slack-like workspace where multi-agents ground it in the lab's discourse graph. Illustrative mock data.
Köhler
Lab
🏠
💬
🤖
WF
Köhler Lab
Channels
# general
# imprinting-project 3
# lab-meeting
# paper-radar
# wet-lab-planning
Lab agents
📖 Reader-agent
🕸️ Graph-agent
🧪 Experiment-agent
✍️ Writer-agent
Direct messages
DK Dana Køhler (PI)
MK Martin Kovačík
# imprinting-project
Endosperm imprinting networks · reciprocal-cross RNA-seq · Q3 experiments
DK
MK
WF
🤖
4 agents active
Today
WF
Wes Finck9:41 AM

Found this on openRxiv this morning — pretty relevant to our reciprocal-cross work. Dropping it in for the agents to chew on 👇

📄 openRxiv preprint · dropped into workspace
Imprinted regulatory networks reveal the molecular cross-talk between paternal and maternal genomes in the endosperm of Arabidopsis arenosa
Budrasky, Kovačík, Čermák, Přibylová, Salony, Ilas, Pečinka, Lafon-Placette · 2026
▲ 0.74 soundness ▲ 0.88 significance 💬 37 comments · 12 verified 🔗 9 connected works
📖
Reader-agentagent9:41 AM
📖 Parsing the OXA-structured preprint…
Extracted 4 core claims + 43 WGCNA modules
Pulled figures, methods & the reciprocal-cross dataset descriptor
Ingested 37 comments & the trust-weighted reception map

TL;DR for the lab: Network-first take on endosperm imprinting in A. arenosa. Central finding — imprinting hits only a few pathways — is broadly agreed & replicated. But two things the field is contesting are directly relevant to us:

  • 🟡 Indiscriminate maternal targeting of PEGs/MEGs — actively debated; a co-adaptation model fits the same data.
  • 🔴 Module-enrichment signalunder scrutiny as a possible WGCNA thresholding artifact.
👀 3🔥 2+
🕸️
Graph-agentagent9:42 AM

Pulled the community/context data and grounded it against our lab's discourse graph:

🕸️ Community context · prestige unbundled, weighted from the Köhler Lab's network
Soundness · method valid?
0.74
tempered by an open module-artifact critique
Significance · matters to us?
0.88
5 vetted researchers · 2 hops from us
Verified discussing
12
incl. Dana (our PI) + R. Narayan
Top critique weight
0.91
module-artifact concern → the soundness drag
Two signals, not one “prestige” number: the work reads as highly significant to our lab (0.88) but its soundness is held back (0.74) by the live methods critique — exactly the split worth surfacing before we build on it.

And here's how it connects into what we're already working on:

🎯 4🕸️ 2+
🧪
Experiment-agentagent9:42 AM

Because this conflicts with our Q3 hypothesis, I looked at the experiments we have planned this week — there's a cheap way to adjudicate it.

🧪 Suggested tweak to this week's plan
Our scheduled reciprocal-cross RNA-seq on A. lyrata (Thu) already produces allele-specific counts. If we add the two A. arenosa accessions we have in the growth chamber to the same run, we can directly test whether "indiscriminate maternal targeting" is real or a species/ploidy artifact — the exact thing the field is debating. Marginal cost: ~1 extra flow-cell lane, no new prep.
✍️
Writer-agentagent9:43 AM
✍️ Want me to draft something based on these results?
This preprint's WGCNA-module framing is strong supporting evidence for Dana's grant Aim 2 ("imprinting as a network property"). I can draft a 120-word paragraph citing it — and flag the module-artifact critique so we pre-empt a reviewer raising it. I can also post a trust-graph-grounded reply on the openRxiv discussion offering our reciprocal-cross angle.
DK
Dana Køhler9:45 AM

Love the Thursday tweak — do it. And yes to the grant paragraph, but keep the artifact caveat in. This is exactly the kind of thing I want the agents surfacing before lab meeting 👏

💯 2+
+   B   i   🔗   📎   @   😊
Agents are grounded in this lab's discourse graph + openRxiv community context.