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
67/100 · DStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Bulk RNA-seq of Vibrio atlanticus. Grade D (67/100) — poor data with compounded QC failures. Adapter contamination (23.39%, measured, scored 0/100) and extreme duplication (85.45%, measured, scored 0/100) jointly compromise this dataset: adapters introduce non-biological sequence and duplication causes severe overestimation of high-abundance transcripts; reuse requires extensive preprocessing and is not recommended for expression quantification.
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