ERR192350

ENA first seen 2015

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 1 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

1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.

Deep data QC

insufficient data to score

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

Data type / assay

methylation

Organism

Mus musculus

Instrument

Illumina HiSeq 2000

Platform

ILLUMINA

Read type

short-read

Files available

FASTQ (raw reads), submitted files

N numbers (samples, groups)

1 runs

Metrics (value · how obtained)

checksum ok yes reported

total bases 49117297600 reported

total reads 245586488 reported

n content pct 0.064 measured

pct q20 bases 96.1 measured

pct q30 bases 90.3 measured

gc content pct 26.9 measured

mean read length 100 measured

mean base quality 35.4 measured

adapter content pct 0.31 measured

duplication rate pct 7.16 measured

How this grade was computed

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

pct q30 bases 90.3 measured ×1 100%

QC cost 21 s compute

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