Single cell RNA sequencing analysis of fresh resected human lung tissue
Fresh resected human lung tissue (parenchymal lung and distal airway specimens) was obtained via the CPC BioArchive at the Comprehensive Pneumology Center Munich (CPC-M, Munich, Germany) and profiled using single cell RNA sequencing technology (Drop-seq). In total, we analysed parenchymal tissue of uninvolved areas of tumour resection material from four patients.
Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 15 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.
- A molecular cell atlas of the human lung from single-cell RNA se... 2020 · 1,822 cites
- Benchmarking atlas-level data integration in single-cell genomic... 2021 · 1,404 cites
- Single cell RNA sequencing of 13 human tissues identify cell typ... 2020 · 912 cites
- Therapy-Induced Evolution of Human Lung Cancer Revealed by Singl... 2020 · 692 cites
- High-resolution single-cell atlas reveals diversity and plastici... 2022 · 459 cites
- Single-cell transcriptional changes associated with drug toleran... 2021 · 271 cites
- SERGIO: A Single-Cell Expression Simulator Guided by Gene Regula... 2020 · 131 cites
- Deep generative model embedding of single-cell RNA-Seq profiles... 2021 · 105 cites
- De novo analysis of bulk RNA-seq data at spatially resolved sing... 2022 · 95 cites
6 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
metadata only · no data-level QC for this typeStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained
No quantitative QC rubric exists for this data type yet, so it is deliberately left unscored — this is an honest "not applicable", not a poor rating.
measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0 · provisional — verify independently
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.