PRJNA30371

BioProject first seen 2016

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

77/100 · C

Standardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured

What this means

claude:haiku

454 WGS with below-peak base accuracy (Q30: 83.9%, measured) and moderate duplicate enrichment (16.92%, measured). Legacy platform introduces systematic errors; reuse viable for consensus tasks, not for sensitive variant discovery.

Data type / assay

WGS

Organism

Phocaeicola coprophilus DSM 18228 = JCM 13818

Instrument

unspecified

Platform

LS454

Files available

FASTQ (raw reads)

N numbers (samples, groups)

1 runs

Metrics (value · how obtained)

checksum ok yes reported

total bases 71772880 reported

total reads 270351 reported

n content pct 0.009 measured

pct q20 bases 95.3 measured

pct q30 bases 83.9 measured

gc content pct 45.9 measured

mean read length 247.7 measured

mean base quality 33.6 measured

adapter content pct 0 measured

duplication rate pct 16.92 measured

How this grade was computed

Weighted mean of 3 scored metric(s) → 77/100

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.

pct q30 bases 83.9 measured ×1 70%

duplication rate pct 16.92 measured ×0.5 72%

adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.4 100%

QC cost 15 s compute

measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0