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
87/100 · BStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
This is bulk RNA-seq from the firefly Photinus pyralis on an Illumina HiSeq 2500, and overall it earns a solid B (87/100) — broadly trustworthy for reuse, with the caveat that the grade rests on a thin measured base (evidence_strength=1, with total_reads, total_bases, and checksum only reported rather than independently measured), so the read is somewhat provisional until a fuller measured pass confirms the library-size and integrity figures. The score is propped up by excellent intrinsic base quality — pct_q30_bases of 94.4% and a mean base quality of 35.7 both scored a perfect 100 — meaning the underlying basecalls are reliable and unlikely to introduce spurious variants or alignment errors. What pulls the grade down are adapter_content_pct at 9.56% (scored 58) and duplication_rate_pct at 45.72% (scored 65): the residual adapter signal means you should plan on trimming before alignment or quantification, and the high duplication rate — though not unusual for RNA-seq of highly expressed transcripts — can inflate apparent expression and reduce effective library complexity, so deduplication behavior and saturation are worth checking for any quantitative analysis. In short, the reads themselves are clean and dependable, but expect a trimming step and treat the duplication level as a real constraint on how much independent signal the library actually carries.
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
Scientific quality
Based on hands-on reproduction of the papers that use this dataset. A reproducible paper that stands on this data is positive evidence; a flagged one is a prompt to look closer — never a verdict on the dataset itself without the evidence.