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

SRP013822

SRA

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

67/100 · D

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

What this means
claude:haiku

Bulk RNA-seq (54bp, Genome Analyzer IIx, Drosophila melanogaster). Grade D (67/100): unsuitable for most reuse despite good base quality. Adapter content of 77.33% (catastrophic) and duplication of 74.75% are disqualifying—platform library-prep failures dominate; only ~25% of reads are unique and adapter-free.

Data type / assay
bulk-RNA-seq
Organism
Drosophila melanogaster
Instrument
Illumina Genome Analyzer IIx
Platform
ILLUMINA
N numbers (samples, groups)
7 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok yes reported
total bases 4043730276 reported
total reads 86495372 reported
n content pct 0.013 measured
pct q20 bases 96.1 measured
pct q30 bases 90.2 measured
gc content pct 48.4 measured
mean read length 54 measured
mean base quality 36.7 measured
adapter content pct 77.33 measured
duplication rate pct 74.75 measured
How this grade was computed
Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 67/100

The D 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 90.2 measured ×1 100%
mean base quality 36.7 measured ×0.6 100%
adapter content pct 77.33 measured ×0.4 0%
duplication rate pct 74.75 measured ×0.4 1%
QC cost 13 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 1 reproduced mean score 78