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
68/100 · DStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Bulk RNA-seq from the bioluminescent click beetle Ignelater luminosus, sequenced on BGISEQ-500 at high depth (~1.44 billion 50-bp reads). The dataset earns a borderline D (68/100): the grade is dragged down chiefly by pct_q30_bases at just 79.3% — meaning roughly one in five bases falls below Q30, which erodes confidence in per-base calls and can inflate false variants and mismapping in downstream expression and SNP work — while a moderate 40.3% duplication rate further suggests limited library complexity that may bias quantification. On the positive side, adapter contamination is effectively zero and overall mean base quality (Q32.7) is respectable, so the reads are clean and usable for robust, expression-level analyses even if not for sensitive base-resolution tasks. Note that evidence_strength is low (1) and the read/base totals and checksum are merely reported rather than independently measured, so this is a provisional reading pending a full measured QC pass.
The D 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.