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
76/100 · CStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Illumina MiSeq WGS of Aeromonas rivuli with moderate base quality (Q30 90.1%) but elevated adapter content (11.32%) and duplication (18.41%), which together drive the C-grade verdict. Adapter retention risks assembly/mapping accuracy; duplication suggests PCR bias or shallow sequencing relative to genome complexity. Evidence strength is low; proceed with caution and validate trimming and coverage uniformity before downstream analysis.
The C 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