← 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
Oreochromis niloticus x Oreochromis mossambicus
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 2000
Platform
ILLUMINA
Read type
short-read
Files available
FASTQ (raw reads)
N numbers (samples, groups)
5 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok
yes
reported
total bases
24143661900
reported
total reads
123191469
reported
n content pct
0.022
measured
pct q20 bases
98.7
measured
pct q30 bases
94.9
measured
gc content pct
51.7
measured
mean read length
100
measured
mean base quality
36.5
measured
adapter content pct
2.06
measured
duplication rate pct
63.46
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
94.9
measured
×1
100%
QC cost
30 s compute
measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0