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
54/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Arabidopsis whole-genome sequencing with critically low base quality and provisional measurement strength. Failed QC (54/100, F) with Q30 of 69.1% (well below the 85% standard for variant calling), elevated adapter content (7.76%), and evidence_strength of only 0.61 (extrapolated metrics including coverage); this combination makes the data unsuitable for SNP discovery. A measured re-assessment of raw sequencing quality is pending.
The F 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