SRP150647

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

68/100 · D

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 Mus musculus on HiSeq 2500 with >6.4 billion reads and ~713× estimated coverage but notably poor quality (34.2% Q20, 12.4% Q30), suggesting severe data quality issues requiring investigation before use.

Data type / assay

WGS

Organism

Mus musculus

Instrument

Illumina HiSeq 2500

Platform

ILLUMINA

Read type

short-read

Files available

FASTQ (raw reads)

N numbers (samples, groups)

24 runs

Metrics (value · how obtained)

checksum ok yes reported

total bases 1924087093800 reported

total reads 6425640567 reported

mean coverage 712.6 extrapolated

n content pct 0.004 measured

pct q20 bases 34.2 measured

pct q30 bases 12.4 measured

gc content pct 45.4 measured

mean read length 150 measured

mean base quality 16.1 measured

adapter content pct 0 measured

duplication rate pct 0.95 measured

How this grade was computed

Weighted mean of 4 scored metric(s) → 68/100

The D 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 712.6 extrapolated ×1.2 100%

pct q30 bases 12.4 measured ×1 0%

duplication rate pct 0.95 measured ×0.5 100%

adapter content pct 0 measured ×0.4 100%

QC cost 24 s compute

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