Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 1 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.
1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
47/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
This is a whole-genome shotgun dataset for the cellulolytic anaerobe Acetivibrio straminisolvens, sequenced on the Ion Torrent PGM, and despite ample raw volume (~48.8 Gb across ~194.5M reads) it earns a failing grade driven overwhelmingly by base-call quality. The single decisive metric is pct_q30_bases at 49.2%, which scored 0/100 at the highest weight: fewer than half the bases meet the Q30 (≥99.9% accuracy) threshold, and a mean base quality of 27 with only 81.9% of bases reaching Q20 confirms an elevated per-base error rate that will inflate false-positive variant calls and fragment assemblies — a well-known Ion Torrent weakness in homopolymer-rich regions. The few things working in its favor are clean library prep (0% adapter content) and a low 7.07% duplication rate, but these are minor weights that cannot offset the quality deficit, and the 57.8% GC with 0% N-content suggests no gross compositional artifact. Note that the core quality metrics here are flagged as measured rather than extrapolated, so this read is reliable on its own terms; the grade is not provisional, and reuse should be limited to applications tolerant of high per-base error or paired with aggressive quality trimming.
The F grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WGS 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.