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.
- How data analysis affects power, reproducibility and biological... 2015 · 116 cites
3 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
99/100 · AStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Mouse RNA-seq with 101 bp reads at 95.9% Q20 and 89.3% Q30 across 693 million bases maintains reasonable quality for transcript mapping. The 50.2% GC is typical for mouse, and mean quality 35 supports differential expression studies; suitable for standard RNA-seq applications in mouse models.
The A 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.