SRP144106

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-genome sequencing from Homo sapiens on NextSeq 500 with ~10 million reads, 0.5× estimated coverage, and notably poor quality (46.7% Q20, 33.5% Q30), representing failed or ultra-low coverage data unsuitable for analysis.

Data type / assay

WGS

Organism

Homo sapiens

Instrument

NextSeq 500

Platform

ILLUMINA

Read type

short-read

Files available

FASTQ (raw reads)

N numbers (samples, groups)

3 runs

Metrics (value · how obtained)

checksum ok yes reported

total bases 1421585760 reported

total reads 10155898 reported

mean coverage 0.5 extrapolated

n content pct 30.762 measured

pct q20 bases 46.7 measured

pct q30 bases 33.5 measured

gc content pct 29.6 measured

mean read length 70 measured

mean base quality 17.7 measured

adapter content pct 0.51 measured

duplication rate pct 8.55 measured

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 WGS thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.

mean coverage 0.5 extrapolated ×1.2 0%

pct q30 bases 33.5 measured ×1 0%

duplication rate pct 8.55 measured ×0.5 98%

adapter content pct 0.51 measured ×0.4 100%

QC cost 1 s compute

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