← Dataset search
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.
Reused by
1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
insufficient data to scoreStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained
Data type / assay
methylation
Organism
Mus musculus
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 2000
Platform
ILLUMINA
Read type
short-read
Files available
FASTQ (raw reads)
N numbers (samples, groups)
192 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok
yes
reported
total bases
323090075000
reported
total reads
1292360300
reported
n content pct
0.019
measured
pct q20 bases
92.8
measured
pct q30 bases
87.1
measured
gc content pct
48.7
measured
mean read length
125
measured
mean base quality
34.2
measured
adapter content pct
57.27
measured
duplication rate pct
1.98
measured
How this grade was computed
The insufficient grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published methylation thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.
pct q30 bases
87.1
measured
×1
86%
QC cost
22 s compute
measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0