Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2023 Sep 14.
Published in final edited form as: Nat Biotechnol. 2023 Jan 26;41(9):1272–1286. doi: 10.1038/s41587-022-01648-w

Extended Data Fig. 3 |. Validation of two-step stripping method.

Extended Data Fig. 3 |

a, Representative images of the RNA signals of the barcode transfected into HEK293T cells and detected by RCAHCR (1’ HCR). Following 1’ HCR, we divided the samples into three groups: (1) no stripping, (2) only hairpin disassembly via strand displacement (SD only) and (3) hairpin disassembly via strand displacement and initiator detachment via formamide treatment (SD-FA). While proceeding with each step, we time-lapse imaged the samples after hairpin disassembly via strand displacement (‘Strand Displacement’), followed by initiator detachment with formamide (‘60% formamide’). b, Relative cell intensity of no-stripping, SD-only, and SD-FA samples in a after each step (n = 3; mean ± s.d.). c, Representative images of the RNA signals from the barcode after the first (1’ HCR) and second round of HCR (2’ HCR) with the same initiators and hairpins (+Initiator) or only the hairpins (−Initiator). d, The coefficient of determination (R2) between 1’ HCR and 2’ HCR in c (mean ± s.d.; two-sided unpaired t-test; n = 9 for ‘−Initiator’; n = 6 for ‘+Initiator’). e, In situ labeling of Gad1 with RCAHCR amplification in mouse cortex (1’ HCR) and re-detection (2’ HCR) after two-step stripping. f, Relative cell intensity over eight rounds of the same barcode detection (used in a) in cell culture (n = 5; mean ± s.d.). g, The coefficient of determination (R2) between each round during the eight rounds of repeated labeling in f (n = 5; mean ± s.d.).