Table 3.
Comparison of Simulated and HMM Detected Dwell Times
| Conductance level | Simulation duration | Composite duration | Fit duration | Conductance level | Simulation duration | Composite duration | Fit duration |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 0.000143 | 0.000144 | 0 | 0.000763 | 0.000756 | ||
| 1 | 0.000070 | 0.000068 | 1 | 0.000103 | 0.000112 | ||
| 0 | 0.000023 | 0.000024 | 0 | 0.000028 | 0.000024 | ||
| 1 | 0.000543 | 1 | 0.000898 | 0.000896 | |||
| 0 | 0.000003* | 0 | 0.000237 | 0.000240 | |||
| 1 | 0.000038 | 0.000997 | 0.000996 | 1 | 0.000972 | 0.000968 | |
| 0 | 0.000005* | 0 | 0.000040 | 0.000040 | |||
| 1 | 0.000408 | 1 | 0.000557 | 0.000552 | |||
| 0 | 0.000020 | 0.000020 | 0 | 0.000458 | 0.000456 | ||
| 1 | 0.000316 | 0.000316 | 1 | 0.000086 | |||
| 0 | 0.000017 | 0.000016 | 0 | 0.000005* | 0.000469 | 0.000472 | |
| 1 | 0.000245 | 1 | 0.000378 | ||||
| 0 | 0.000006* | 0.000336 | 0.000336 | 0 | 0.000498 | 0.000500 | |
| 1 | 0.000085 | 1 | 0.000507 | ||||
| 0 | 0.000017 | 0.000016 | 0 | 0.000006* | 0.001423 | 0.001420 | |
| 1 | 0.000626 | 0.000628 | 1 | 0.000910 | |||
| 0 | 0.000012 | 0.000008 | 0 | 0.001479 | 0.001476 | ||
| 1 | 0.000304 | 1 | 0.000357 | 0.000360 | |||
| 0 | 0.000004* | 0.000652 | 0.000656 | 0 | 0.000011 | 0.000012 | |
| 1 | 0.000344 | 1 | 0.000110 | 0.000120 | |||
| 0 | 0.000020 | 0.000024 | 0 | 0.000008 | 0.000008 | ||
| 1 | 0.000667 | 1 | 0.000034 | 0.000028 | |||
| 0 | 0.000003* | 0.0001748 | 0.001748 | 0 | 0.000137 | 0.000128 | |
| 1 | 0.001078 | 1 | 0.000245 | 0.000248 |
Consecutive dwell times were simulated as described in , and results from HMM analysis are given for comparison. Simulation rate constants were in units of s−: k+ = 2,000, k− = 17,000, β = 100,000, α = 4,500. Conductance level 0 is the closed state of the channel, and level 1 is the open state. Bold numbers indicate individual events that fuse to form composite events due to intervening brief events. *Undetected brief events.