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
19/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
This Genome Analyzer IIx RNA-seq from the silk moth Bombyx mori produced 17.4M reads with low Q-scores (81.8% Q20, 54.4% Q30) and elevated N-content (0.118%), indicating compromised data quality from this early-generation sequencer. The 47.2% GC is normal. Reuse is limited; the poor accuracy and platform age preclude reliable quantitative transcriptomics, though may suffice for presence/absence surveys of abundant transcripts.
The F 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