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
60/100 · DStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
This HiSeq 2000 RNA-seq from the fungus Neurospora crassa produced 42.9M reads across 2.1B bases with notably lower Q30 (76.9%) and elevated N-content (0.186%), indicating degraded sample or library quality. The 55.9% GC is high for fungi. Reuse requires understanding whether quality issues reflect biological sample degradation or technical failure; caveat that lower accuracy compromises isoform-level quantitation and variant calling.
The D grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published bulk-RNA-seq 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