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
47/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Fungal WGS from SOLiD platform with failing grade F; pct_q30_bases (1.5%, measured) is catastrophic, with only a tiny fraction meeting quality thresholds. The unusually low GC content (1.3%, measured) and mean base quality (11.6) suggest either extreme sequencing failure or a data processing artifact. Not suitable for reuse without root-cause investigation. Full measured evidence confirms genuine quality failure.
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