ERR843908

ENA first seen 2021

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

61/100 · D

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

What this means

claude:haiku

miRNA-seq with severe quality limitations unsuitable for reliable quantification. Extreme duplication (70.26%) is catastrophic for a technique where even biological miRNA abundance shows high redundancy, and Q30 bases at only 81.1% further compromise isoform discrimination. Reuse not recommended without substantial processing review.

Data type / assay

bulk-RNA-seq

Organism

Acyrthosiphon pisum

Instrument

Illumina HiSeq 2500

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 80599150 reported

total reads 1611983 reported

n content pct 0.016 measured

pct q20 bases 88.4 measured

pct q30 bases 81.1 measured

gc content pct 57.7 measured

mean read length 50 measured

mean base quality 32.6 measured

adapter content pct 0 measured

duplication rate pct 70.26 measured

How this grade was computed

Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 61/100

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

pct q30 bases 81.1 measured ×1 56%

mean base quality 32.6 measured ×0.6 77%

adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.4 100%

duplication rate pct 70.26 measured ×0.4 11%

QC cost 16 s compute

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