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

GSE35681

GEO first seen 2013

ChIP-seq and mRNA-seq experiment to find the direct target genes of ATF4 and CHOP

Organism
Mus musculus
Samples
10
Type
Expression profiling by high...
Submitted
2012-02-09

We report the direct target genes of ATF4 and CHOP in response to endoplasim reticulum stress through next generation sequencing. By obtaining genowide sequence from chromatin immunoprecipitated DNA with anti-CHOP and anit-ATF4, we identified direct binding sites of ATF4 and CHOP in promoter regions of their target genes in mouse embrynic fibroblasts (MEFs) in response to ER stress. In addition, we obtained list of genes which are differentially regulated in Atf4 or Chop-deficient MEFs compared...

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 16 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

7 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
BEDGRAPH, RPKM
Metrics (value · how obtained)
n content pct 0.06 measured
pct q20 bases 100 measured
pct q30 bases 100 measured
gc content pct 41.9 measured
mean read length 37 measured
mean base quality 30 measured
adapter content pct 0 measured
duplication rate pct 9.08 measured
supplementary file types BEDGRAPH, RPKM 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 100 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 100