SRP130766

ENA first seen 2018

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

29/100 · F

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

What this means

claude:haiku

Whole-exome sequencing from Homo sapiens on HiSeq 4000 with very low read count (~8k reads) and poor quality (62.4% Q20, 46.6% Q30), representing a severely failed or incomplete dataset unsuitable for variant analysis or quality assessment.

Data type / assay

WES

Organism

Homo sapiens

Instrument

Illumina HiSeq 4000

Platform

ILLUMINA

Read type

short-read

Files available

FASTQ (raw reads)

N numbers (samples, groups)

4 runs

Metrics (value · how obtained)

checksum ok yes reported

total bases 2143773 reported

total reads 8020 reported

n content pct 13.024 measured

pct q20 bases 62.4 measured

pct q30 bases 46.6 measured

gc content pct 31 measured

mean read length 145.2 measured

mean base quality 24.6 measured

adapter content pct 0 measured

duplication rate pct 8.33 measured

mean target coverage 0 extrapolated

How this grade was computed

Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 29/100

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

mean target coverage 0 extrapolated ×1.2 0%

pct q30 bases 46.6 measured ×1 0%

duplication rate pct 8.33 measured ×0.5 100%

adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.4 100%

QC cost 1 s compute

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