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
67/100 · DStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
SARS-CoV-2 amplicon, Illumina NovaSeq. D-grade (67/100) with severe adapter contamination (25.06%), the worst in the SARS-CoV-2 batch, indicating systematic library preparation failure—this level of contamination will contaminate >1 in 4 reads with extraneous sequence. Despite Q30=96.8%, the adapter burden is disqualifying; reuse not recommended unless raw reads are re-trimmed and extensively validated.
The D grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published amplicon 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