Multiplex-NGS for identification of differentially expressed miRNAs between colon cancer patients with and without metachronous metastases
Purpose: The goal of this experiment was to identify differentially expressed miRNAs between colon cancer patients with and without metachronous metastases. Background: Colon cancer prognosis and treatment are currently based on a classification system still showing large heterogeneity in clinical outcome, especially in TNM-stages II-III. Prognostic biomarkers for metastasis risk are warranted, as development of distant recurrent disease mainly accounts for the high lethality rates of colon can...
Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 5 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.
- Noncoding Effects of Circular RNA CCDC66 Promote Colon Cancer Gr... 2017 · 740 cites
- Unique somatic and malignant expression patterns implicate PIWI-... 2015 · 167 cites
- PIWI-interacting RNA-54265 is oncogenic and a potential therapeu... 2018 · 165 cites
- Prognostic value of 5-microRNA based signature in T2-T3N0 colon... 2016 · 75 cites
1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
83/100 · BStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Bulk RNA-seq (Homo sapiens). B grade, marginal—use with caution. Extreme duplication (79.87%) suggests PCR overamplification or sample bias, which inflates expression variance and distorts DE calls; duplicate filtering or independent validation is essential before interpretation.
The B grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published bulk-RNA-seq thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.
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.