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
41/100 · FStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
Honey bee bulk RNA-seq with poor technical performance. Grade F (41/100) shows multiple failures: Q30 only 75.2% (scored 26/100), mean quality 30.7 (scored 45/100), and duplication 67.63% (scored 16/100). The combination of low per-base quality and high duplication makes this unsuitable for most downstream analyses—expression calls will have high error rates and false duplicate-driven signals. Not recommended for reuse.
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