Corpus 1,273 assessed · 1,174 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 169 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← Dataset search

GSE120132

GEO first seen 2021

A multi-tissue full lifespan epigenetic clock for mice [I]

Organism
Mus musculus
Samples
549
Type
Methylation profiling by hig...
Submitted
2018-09-18

Human DNA-methylation data have been used to develop highly accurate biomarkers of aging ("epigenetic clocks"). Recent studies demonstrate that similar epigenetic clocks for mice (Mus Musculus) can be slowed by gold standard anti-aging interventions such as calorie restriction and growth hormone receptor knock-outs. Using DNA methylation data from previous publications with data collected in house for a total 1189 samples spanning 193,651 CpG sites, we developed 4 novel epigenetic clocks by choo...

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.

Deposited / produced by
Steve HorvathMichael J Thompson
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
Files available
TXT
Metrics (value · how obtained)
n content pct 0.007 measured
pct q20 bases 97.5 measured
pct q30 bases 94.5 measured
gc content pct 31.4 measured
mean read length 101 measured
mean base quality 38.8 measured
adapter content pct 0.88 measured
duplication rate pct 59.28 measured
supplementary file types TXT reported
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 94.5 measured ×1 100%

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

Scientific quality

Based on hands-on reproduction of the papers that use this dataset. A reproducible paper that stands on this data is positive evidence; a flagged one is a prompt to look closer — never a verdict on the dataset itself without the evidence.

1 studies use it 1 reproduced mean score 93