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

GSE31477

GEO first seen 2014

ENCODE Transcription Factor Binding Sites by ChIP-seq from Stanford/Yale/USC/Harvard

Organism
Homo sapiens
Samples
426
Type
Genome binding/occupancy pro...
Submitted
2011-08-18

This data was generated by ENCODE. If you have questions about the data, contact the submitting laboratory directly (Philip Cayting mailto:«email»). If you have questions about the Genome Browser track associated with this data, contact ENCODE (mailto:«email»). This track shows probable binding sites of the specified transcription factors (TFs) in the given cell types as determined by chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by high throughput sequencing (ChIP-Seq). Included for each cell type is...

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 48 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
Michael SnyderMark GersteinSherman WeissmanPeggy FarnhamKevin Struhl
Reused by

34 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
Homo sapiens
Files available
BIGWIG, NARROWPEAK, TXT
Metrics (value · how obtained)
n content pct 0.055 measured
pct q20 bases 92.7 measured
pct q30 bases 87 measured
gc content pct 39.6 measured
mean read length 36 measured
mean base quality 34.9 measured
adapter content pct 0 measured
duplication rate pct 3.2 measured
supplementary file types BIGWIG, NARROWPEAK, 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 87 measured ×1 85%

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 100