ERX397242

ENA first seen 2017

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

43/100 · F

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

What this means

claude:haiku

Low-quality WGS from legacy 454 technology with unacceptable quality metrics. Q30 bases at only 66.9% (scored 0) make variant discovery highly unreliable; despite decent mean quality (32.1), the high proportion of sub-Q30 bases renders this unsuitable for reuse in any high-confidence genomic analysis.

Data type / assay

WGS

Organism

Romboutsia ilealis

Instrument

454 GS FLX

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 105363400 reported

total reads 234223 reported

n content pct 0.012 measured

pct q20 bases 86.2 measured

pct q30 bases 66.9 measured

gc content pct 27.9 measured

mean read length 459.3 measured

mean base quality 32.1 measured

adapter content pct 0.05 measured

duplication rate pct 13.17 measured

How this grade was computed

Weighted mean of 3 scored metric(s) → 43/100

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 66.9 measured ×1 0%

duplication rate pct 13.17 measured ×0.5 84%

adapter content pct 0.05 measured ×0.4 100%

QC cost 13 s compute

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