Corpus 1,273 assessed · 1,174 scored · 643 reproduced ≥75 · 169 flagged ·∅ 74.1/100
← Dataset search

PRJNA858276

BioProject

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 0 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.

No linked papers found in the corpus yet.

Deep data QC

99/100 · A

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

What this means
claude:haiku

Mouse bulk-RNA-seq on NextSeq 500 generated 341 million reads (51.3 Gb) with 94.1% Q20 and 91.6% Q30, providing good quality for transcript profiling. The 49.6% GC is typical of murine transcriptomes, and 0.271% N-content indicates minor sequencing artifacts; suitable for studying tissue-specific or disease-related gene expression in mouse models.

Data type / assay
bulk-RNA-seq
Organism
Mus musculus
Instrument
NextSeq 500
Platform
ILLUMINA
Read type
short-read
Files available
FASTQ (raw reads)
N numbers (samples, groups)
16 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 51285895163 reported
total reads 340978907 reported
n content pct 0.271 measured
pct q20 bases 94.1 measured
pct q30 bases 91.6 measured
gc content pct 49.6 measured
mean read length 75.1 measured
mean base quality 33.8 measured
adapter content pct 0.01 measured
duplication rate pct 20.91 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 99/100

The A 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 91.6 measured ×1 100%
mean base quality 33.8 measured ×0.6 97%
adapter content pct 0.01 measured ×0.4 100%
duplication rate pct 20.91 measured ×0.4 100%
QC cost 22 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