SRP033385

ENA first seen 2014

Provenance — who produced it, who reused it

Linked to 2 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

2 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.

Deep data QC

insufficient data to score

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

Data type / assay

ChIP-seq

Organism

Mus musculus

Instrument

Illumina HiSeq 2000

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 53022434300 reported

total reads 534285001 reported

n content pct 0.002 measured

pct q20 bases 99.3 measured

pct q30 bases 98 measured

gc content pct 47.2 measured

mean read length 50 measured

mean base quality 37.9 measured

adapter content pct 0 measured

duplication rate pct 2.16 measured

How this grade was computed

The insufficient grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published ChIP-seq thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.

pct q30 bases 98 measured ×1 100%

QC cost 21 s compute

measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0