Previously counted plots included all that were available at the time (found in this link; which had about equal numbers of plots from each dodecamer (hexamer – trimer). The data on this page show just about every plot that I have ever made….. these are divided as to trimer…. so this is mean trimer peak number. The latter counts the N term peak with each trimer (even though it is shared between all the trimers…. each trimer it gets counted once. Therefore a peak number of 8 per trimer would become peak number of 15 per hexamer owing to the N term peak being shared. In terms of progress…. its best to assume that the more recent posts are the better data. Every possible image and signal processing filters and algorithms are summed here. Some people counts, all counts…. this represents a huge N, in my estimation.
I think my current favorite image processing filter is still the gaussian blur, and my favorite peak counting program is PeakValleyDetectionTemplate.xlsx by Thomas O’Haver.
Peaks per hexamer were calculated four ways. As every plot made for each of these four dodecamers. This includes hundreds of counts for one dodecamer, and between 26 and 50 hexamer plots for the other three. Certainly one carries more weight, or one would think, but the data using each of the plots separately is not different than using each of the methodologies (at an absolute minimum there were 2 image processing filters, and at least 5 signal processing algorithms for several of these image processed pictures.
Data are also given with each of the four dodecamers individually: (41_ak45; 42a_aka_44; 43; 97-1). In addition. n, mean, sd, and other parameters were calculated from my original peak counts from just the “image”, as well as from my original peak counts from the plot generated in ImageJ. This is in addition to the whole lot of plots subjected to signal processing. Bottom line is that signal processing appears to increase the peak count in a significant way. Whether the signal processing is “better” (which i dont think it true” or counts from images is “better” remains to be sorted out. Below is a comparison of the various “sorting” that I used to determine mean number of peaks per hexamer of SP-D.
Two left columns are: 1) Every plot of a hexamer separately, 2) Plots divided into each of the four dodecamers separated into groups; Two right columns are counts separated into “image with signal processing” per dodecamer ( and separated again into, my counts of image processing plots only plus my counts of the peaks in plots made in ImageJ (that is… NO SIGNAL processing) 18+ peaks with signal processed plots, and 15+ peaks using my hand counts. 15 peaks per hexamer is in my bet for the best number. See previous posts here.