SRR2105509
SRAProvenance — who produced it, who reused it
Linked to 0 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.
No linked papers found in the corpus yet.
Deep data QC
67/100 · DStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
This is a deeply duplicated, adapter-saturated short-read ncRNA-Seq library from human (Illumina Genome Analyzer), and despite pristine per-base quality it earns a marginal D because the metrics that matter most for reuse are failing. On the upside, base accuracy is excellent — pct_q30 of 97.7% and a mean base quality of 38.3 mean the underlying basecalls are trustworthy, and the near-zero N content and 52.5% GC raise no compositional alarms. The grade is dragged down by two heavily weighted, directly measured failures: an adapter_content of 96.31% (essentially every read is adapter-contaminated and must be aggressively trimmed before any alignment, with the short 51 bp reads at real risk of being whittled to unusable lengths) and an 84.76% duplication_rate (very low library complexity, so quantification will be dominated by a small set of distinct molecules and expression estimates will be unreliable). Note that evidence_strength is 1 (the highest), so this is a fully measured read rather than a provisional one — the verdict is solid: the high-quality bases are real, but so is the contamination, and you should expect substantial read loss after trimming and treat any abundance estimates with caution.
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