PRJNA531677

BioProject first seen 2019

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.

Reused by

1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.

Deep data QC

92/100 · A

Standardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured

What this means

claude:haiku

High-quality WES with exceptional Q30 (97.4%) and near-zero duplication (0.99%), grading A despite 5.99% adapter content (the only metric limiting a perfect score). Adapter trimming is routine; otherwise excellent for exome variant analysis.

Data type / assay

WES

Organism

Aethotaxis mitopteryx

Instrument

Illumina HiSeq 2500

Platform

ILLUMINA

Read type

short-read

Files available

FASTQ (raw reads)

N numbers (samples, groups)

46 runs

Metrics (value · how obtained)

checksum ok yes reported

total bases 231102230200 reported

total reads 2311022302 reported

n content pct 0 measured

pct q20 bases 98.6 measured

pct q30 bases 97.4 measured

gc content pct 46.3 measured

mean read length 100 measured

mean base quality 38.4 measured

adapter content pct 5.99 measured

duplication rate pct 0.99 measured

How this grade was computed

Weighted mean of 3 scored metric(s) → 92/100

The A grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WES thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.

pct q30 bases 97.4 measured ×1 100%

duplication rate pct 0.99 measured ×0.5 100%

adapter content pct 5.99 measured ×0.4 64%

QC cost 15 s compute

measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0