. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Mar 1.

Published in final edited form as: Nat Methods. 2010 Aug 22;7(9):761–768. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.1493

Table 1. Comparison between computer-inferred and hand-tracked microtubule dynamics.

Both computer-inferred rate measurements using EB1-EGFP comet tracking and cluster analysis and hand-tracked microtubule trajectories of homogeneously labeled microtubules were adjusted to make the underlying assumptions more comparable as explained in the text. Pauses per microtubule are not initially defined in segment-by-segment hand-tracked data sets. Values are means ± standard deviation.

	Growth (μm min⁻¹)	Shortening (μm min⁻¹)	Pause (μm min⁻¹)	Pause duration (sec)
Computer-inferred (raw)	16.8 ± 7.4 n = 2799	17.6 ± 14.7 n = 775	7.2 ± 5.2 n = 704	6.9
Computer-inferred (corrected)	18.7 ± 7.4 n = 2351	24.4 ± 14.3 n = 499	4.6 ± 2.4 n = 517	8.2
Hand-tracked (raw, segment-by-segment)	21.7 ± 8.4 n = 582	39.4 ± 22.6 n = 283
Hand-tracked (corrected, head-to-tail)	19.1 ± 7.4 n = 122	24.9 ± 12.8 n = 70	4.3 ± 3.4 n = 105	3.0