Skip to main content
. 2021 Apr 22;12:2371. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-22277-y

Fig. 3. All 15 dNAM data strings were recovered from a single read.

Fig. 3

(a) plots the numbers of each origami index observed in a single recording, based on template matching. The mean counts are shown as gray bars, with the percentage of the total origami indicated on the secondary axis. In (b), the mean number of total errors (top) for each structure is shown, based on template matching. The same errors are also shown after being grouped into false negatives (middle) and false positives (bottom). (c) depicts the percent of origami passed to the decoding algorithm that had both their indexes and data strings correctly identified. In (d), the percentage of each origami decoded is plotted against the mean number of errors for each structure. (e) shows histograms of the total mean numbers of errors found in origami identified by template matching (open bars) and the decoding algorithm (gray bars). The difference between the two is plotted in blue. Mean values for three experiments are depicted in all graphs, error bars indicate ±SD. Individual data points are plotted as small black circles.