ERR102953

ENA first seen 2013

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 2 papers in the literature. Roles are inferred factual signals (who deposited the data vs who reused it), with counts — never a judgement about any author.

Reused by

2 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.

Deep data QC

47/100 · F

Standardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured

Data type / assay

WGS

Organism

Plasmodium falciparum 3D7

Instrument

454 GS FLX Titanium

Platform

LS454

Files available

FASTQ (raw reads), submitted files

N numbers (samples, groups)

1 runs

Metrics (value · how obtained)

checksum ok yes reported

total bases 330528945 reported

total reads 659143 reported

n content pct 0.025 measured

pct q20 bases 85.1 measured

pct q30 bases 62.9 measured

gc content pct 27 measured

mean read length 288 measured

mean base quality 30.9 measured

adapter content pct 0 measured

duplication rate pct 8.74 measured

How this grade was computed

Weighted mean of 3 scored metric(s) → 47/100

The F grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WGS thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.

pct q30 bases 62.9 measured ×1 0%

duplication rate pct 8.74 measured ×0.5 98%

adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.4 100%

QC cost 12 s compute

measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0