Provenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 4 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.
4 further papers cite this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
86/100 · BStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Tetramorium bicarinatum bulk RNA-seq (Illumina HiSeq 2000). Grade B (86/100) with good base quality (88.2% Q30) but elevated duplication (57.45%). Q30 is marginally below the 90% benchmark, and moderate duplication suggests PCR over-amplification during library prep. Usable for expression work with verification of duplication impact on abundance.
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
Scientific quality
Based on hands-on reproduction of the papers that use this dataset. A reproducible paper that stands on this data is positive evidence; a flagged one is a prompt to look closer — never a verdict on the dataset itself without the evidence.