PRJEB30620
BioProjectProvenance — 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
68/100 · DStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Long-read Oxford Nanopore (MinION) whole-genome sequencing of a human sample, delivered as raw FASTQ. The dataset earns a marginal grade (D, 68/100) that hinges almost entirely on a quality-versus-depth tension: nominal coverage is very high (mean_coverage ≈181×, which fully credited the score), but base accuracy is poor — only 19.3% of bases reach Q30 and 48.5% reach Q20, with a mean base quality of ~20.1, characteristic of older Nanopore chemistry where raw per-base error is high. For reuse this means abundant data and good consensus/structural-variant potential thanks to long reads (~7 kb mean) and depth, but per-base error makes it unreliable for SNV/indel calling without heavy consensus polishing, which is why the low Q30 fraction drove the grade down. Note that the headline coverage figure is extrapolated rather than measured and overall evidence_strength is only 0.61, so this assessment is provisional and should be confirmed by a full measured QC pass before the data are trusted for variant-level work.
The D 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