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
85/100 · BStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
This Genome Analyzer IIx RNA-seq from Aedes aegypti generated 1.4M reads spanning 148M bases with very low Q20 (89.4%) and Q30 (83.2%), plus markedly elevated N-content (0.488%), indicating severely compromised data quality. The 44.8% GC is normal but overall data integrity is questionable. Reuse is not recommended; this dataset reflects likely sample degradation or platform malfunction and cannot support reliable expression analysis.
The B 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