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.
1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
33/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Bacterial amplicon (*Phocaeicola dorei*), Illumina HiSeq 2000. F-grade (33/100) with severely degraded base quality: Q30=52.6% (scoring 0/100) and mean BQ=22.7, indicating template failure, enzymatic deficiency, or instrument malfunction. Over half of bases fall below Q20, introducing systematic errors across the dataset. Not suitable for reuse; resequencing required.
The F grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published amplicon 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