Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 17 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.
17 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
96/100 · AStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
High-quality bulk RNA-seq of Gossypium barbadense. Grade A, 96/100 with all metrics measured. Elevated duplication (39.7%) is the primary limitation, likely from naturally abundant transcripts, and can inflate variance and bias isoform discovery. Q30 bases (95.4%) and mean quality (39.2) are excellent otherwise, enabling reuse with duplicate-aware normalization.
The A 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.