← Dataset search
Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 3 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
3 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
insufficient data to scoreStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained
Data type / assay
methylation
Organism
Canis lupus familiaris
Instrument
HiSeq X Ten
Platform
ILLUMINA
Read type
short-read
Files available
FASTQ (raw reads)
N numbers (samples, groups)
373 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok
yes
reported
total bases
19103907167690
reported
total reads
76753160851
reported
n content pct
0.006
measured
pct q20 bases
90.2
measured
pct q30 bases
0
measured
gc content pct
47.1
measured
mean read length
150
measured
mean base quality
23.7
measured
adapter content pct
12.03
measured
duplication rate pct
14.71
measured
How this grade was computed
The insufficient grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published methylation thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.
pct q30 bases
0
measured
×1
0%
QC cost
26 s compute
measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0