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
94/100 · AStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Bacterial WGS of Pseudomonas aeruginosa LESB58 achieves A-grade QC (94/100) with minimal sequencing errors and very low duplication (3.17%). Q30 base fraction at 87.8% (89/100 score, weight 1) is the primary constraint—acceptable for draft-quality assembly but slightly below the highest tier for whole-genome finishing. Excellent duplication control and minimal adapter content make this dataset reliable for genomic reuse.
The A 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