PRJNA830374
BioProjectProvenance — 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
93/100 · AStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
High-quality WGS of P. putida. Grade A, 93/100 with all metrics measured. Adapter content (4%) and duplication (10.7%) drove minor score reductions, but Q30 bases (92.3%) and mean quality (35.7) are excellent; PCR bias can be corrected downstream, making this suitable for genomic variant discovery.
The A grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WGS 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.