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
81/100 · BStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Fungal bulk RNA-seq from Escovopsis weberi achieves B-grade QC (81/100) with multiple concerns. Duplication is high at 51% (53/100 score) and Q30 bases below-ideal at 85.1% (76/100 score, weight 1)—together suggesting over-amplification or suboptimal sequencing, reducing transcript abundance accuracy. Reuse requires validated bias-correction or deduplication; not recommended for quantification-sensitive applications without remediation.
The B 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