SRX326767
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
91/100 · AStandardized, field-standard QC computed by touching the data — every metric states how it was obtained · evidence: measured
This is whole-genome shotgun sequencing of the Asian longhorned beetle (Anoplophora glabripennis) on Illumina HiSeq 2000, and on balance it earns its A: base quality is excellent, with 91.1% of bases at Q30 and a mean base quality of ~36, meaning the per-base calls are reliable enough for confident variant detection, while adapter contamination (0.05%) and N-content (0.044%) are negligible. The single factor holding the score back is a duplication rate of 18.77%, which scored only 66/100; PCR/optical duplicates inflate apparent coverage and should be marked and removed before variant calling or assembly, since unaddressed they can bias allele-frequency and depth estimates. The 38.5% GC and uniform 101 bp reads are consistent with a clean insect WGS library, so the data are well suited for reuse in genome assembly or resequencing once deduplication is applied. One caveat on confidence: the quality-relevant metrics here (Q30, adapter, duplication) are genuinely measured, but the foundational throughput figures (total_bases, total_reads, checksum) are only reported rather than independently verified, so coverage-dependent claims rest partly on metadata you may want to confirm against the actual reads.
The A grade is a transparent weighted average. Each metric below scored from 0–100% against the published WGS 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
Scientific quality
Based on hands-on reproduction of the papers that use this dataset. A reproducible paper that stands on this data is positive evidence; a flagged one is a prompt to look closer — never a verdict on the dataset itself without the evidence.