SRP050576

ENA first seen 2015

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

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

Homo sapiens

Instrument

Illumina HiSeq 2500

Platform

ILLUMINA

Read type

short-read

Files available

FASTQ (raw reads)

N numbers (samples, groups)

28 runs

Metrics (value · how obtained)

checksum ok yes reported

total bases 66417890529 reported

total reads 1302311579 reported

n content pct 0.003 measured

pct q20 bases 99.4 measured

pct q30 bases 98.3 measured

gc content pct 48.9 measured

mean read length 51 measured

mean base quality 38.7 measured

adapter content pct 0 measured

duplication rate pct 27.84 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 98.3 measured ×1 100%

QC cost 29 s compute

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