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
49/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Endophyte metagenome amplicon with severe quality defects. Failed QC (49/100, F) primarily due to Q30 of only 74.8% (well below the >85% standard needed for confident taxonomy) and elevated adapter content (1.24%), both of which compromise taxonomic accuracy and will generate unreliable microbial identifications. Not recommended for publication-quality work.
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