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
99/100 · AStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
This is a deeply sequenced bulk-RNA-seq dataset (~1.07 billion HiSeq 1500 reads from the firefly Aquatica lateralis) that earns a well-founded grade A, with the score resting on directly measured QC metrics rather than extrapolation (evidence_strength=1), so the reading is firm rather than provisional. The grade is driven up by excellent base quality—98.6% of bases at Q30 and a mean base quality of 38.8, indicating very few sequencing errors—alongside negligible adapter contamination (0.01%), all of which support reliable read mapping and transcript quantification. The only metric pulling the score down is a duplication rate of 32.06%, which is typical-to-moderate for deep RNA-seq (where highly expressed transcripts are legitimately resampled) but does flag that effective library complexity is somewhat reduced, something worth checking if you intend to call lowly expressed transcripts or do duplicate-sensitive analyses. Overall these data are trustworthy for standard expression and differential-expression reuse; just deduplicate or interpret expression of rare transcripts with the duplication level in mind.
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.