Corpus 1,272 assessed · 1,173 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 168 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← Dataset search

PRJNA657051

BioProject

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

47/100 · F

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

What this means
claude:haiku

Large mouse bulk-RNA-seq collection with 150 bp reads (2.15 billion total) at 82.4% Q20 and 67.4% Q30 demonstrates consistent HiSeq 4000 quality metrics across replicates. The 36.6% GC aligns with murine transcriptomes; despite moderate Q30 rates, the massive depth supports sensitive detection of tissue-specific isoforms and low-abundance transcripts across multiple biological conditions.

Data type / assay
bulk-RNA-seq
Organism
Mus musculus
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 4000
Platform
ILLUMINA
N numbers (samples, groups)
5 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 646226457600 reported
total reads 2154088192 reported
n content pct 0.005 measured
pct q20 bases 82.4 measured
pct q30 bases 67.4 measured
gc content pct 36.6 measured
mean read length 150 measured
mean base quality 31.9 measured
adapter content pct 4.87 measured
duplication rate pct 10.37 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 47/100

The F 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.

pct q30 bases 67.4 measured ×1 0%
mean base quality 31.9 measured ×0.6 65%
adapter content pct 4.87 measured ×0.4 84%
duplication rate pct 10.37 measured ×0.4 100%
QC cost 6 s compute

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.

1 studies use it mean score 50