Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 2 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.
- Circuit-wide Transcriptional Profiling Reveals Brain Region-Spec... 2016 · 354 cites
1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
81/100 · BStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Mouse bulk-RNA-seq with 125 bp reads at 89.8% Q20 and 82.3% Q30 shows declining base quality typical of older sequencing runs. The 49.1% GC and 33.3 mean quality are marginal; after stringent quality filtering, suitable for gene-level abundance estimation but less reliable for junction-level or variant analysis.
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.