← Dataset search
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.
Reused by
1 further paper cites this accession but reuse could not be confirmed.
Deep data QC
insufficient data to scoreStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained
Data type / assay
methylation
Organism
Danio rerio
Instrument
Illumina HiSeq 1500
Platform
ILLUMINA
Read type
short-read
Files available
FASTQ (raw reads)
N numbers (samples, groups)
8 runs
Metrics (value · how obtained)
checksum ok
yes
reported
total bases
42824888766
reported
total reads
436426411
reported
n content pct
0.001
measured
pct q20 bases
98.6
measured
pct q30 bases
96
measured
gc content pct
20.9
measured
mean read length
96
measured
mean base quality
36.9
measured
adapter content pct
1.28
measured
duplication rate pct
2.04
measured
How this grade was computed
The insufficient grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published methylation thresholds, weighted by its importance; nothing is hidden or subjective.
pct q30 bases
96
measured
×1
100%
QC cost
32 s compute
measured = computed from the data · extrapolated/reported = derived or from the repository · dq-1.0