Corpus 1,272 assessed · 1,173 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 168 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← Dataset search

GSE13845

GEO first seen 2013

ChIP-seq Accurately Predicts Tissue-Specific Activity of Enhancers

Organism
Mus musculus
Samples
3
Type
Genome binding/occupancy pro...
Submitted
2008-12-05

Determining the spatial and temporal activity patterns of enhancers remains a challenge in the functional annotation of the human genome. Here, we performed genome-wide mapping of tissue-specific in vivo binding sites for the enhancer-associated protein p300 and assessed in transgenic mice the utility of this information in identifying enhancers and predicting their activity patterns. Chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by massively-parallel sequencing was used to identify p300-enriched sit...

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 4 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
Axel ViselMatthew J BlowLen A Pennacchio
Reused by

2 further papers cite 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
ChIP-seq
Organism
Mus musculus
Files available
TXT
Metrics (value · how obtained)
n content pct 0.073 measured
pct q20 bases 99.9 measured
pct q30 bases 99.3 measured
gc content pct 39.9 measured
mean read length 36 measured
mean base quality 51 measured
adapter content pct 0.38 measured
duplication rate pct 14.98 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 ChIP-seq thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.

pct q30 bases 99.3 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 98