Genomics — Raw Sequence & Results

Figure 1 — Fraction of unmapped reads containing the 9-nt motif (WT vs YVAA)

Reported values: motif present in 5.9% of unmapped reads for WT and 0.13% for catalytically inactive (YVAA) control; data from n = 2 biological replicates (miniprep-seq) and described in the paper's motif-discovery panel.

Source: DRT10 motif enrichment (WT vs YVAA)

Figure 2 — Distribution of longest continuous 9-nt motif repeats per read (miniprep-seq)

The paper reports the median of this distribution is 15 repeats, with 16 repeats being the maximum possible per 150-nt sequencing read (because 16 × 9 nt = 144 nt fits within 150 nt read length). The histogram here re-synthesizes that distribution shape anchored to the reported median and maximum for faithful reproduction of the key experimental observation (tandem-concatemeric nature of DRT10 cDNAs).

Source: DRT10 repeat-length distribution

Figure 3 — Motif position visualization (schematic with explanation)

The original paper presents "motif position graphs" that show where motif repeats lie across miniprep-seq reads (normalized as counts per million plasmid-mapping reads). Here we present a schematic re-creation that shows motif density concentrated across the same read-length span consistent with long tandem concatemers; the original plotted per-base (or per-window) counts per million and contrasted WT vs YVAA and NC mutants — consult the cited panel for exact per-base traces.

Source and more complete per-position traces: DRT10 motif position graphs (WT vs mutants)

Taken together the reported statistics (motif enrichment in WT vs inactive RT, the long-repeat histogram with median = 15 repeats and max = 16 per 150-nt read, and dense motif position signals across reads) indicate that Eco 3 DRT10 RT synthesizes long tandem 9-nt repeat cDNAs in a highly processive, template-directed manner — analogous mechanistically to telomerase repeat-addition processivity described by the authors. These are the exact experimental observations reported; see the cited panels for full per-sample traces and mutant comparisons.

Key caveats: visual panels here reproduce and summarize reported metrics only — per-base per-sample counts and per-replicate variability are reported in the original preprint figures (miniprep-seq motif-position graphs, mutant panels) and should be consulted for precise numeric comparisons and statistical tests; raw sequencing counts and underlying read-level coordinates are available from the authors/SRA as indicated in the paper.

Cited primary source for all plotted experimental numbers: DRT10 primary preprint