Fig. 4

a Impact of overlapping reads on MS error rates for the DI library preparation method. Overlapping reads significantly reduced error rates for the DI library preparation method (t-test comparing forward [mean 1.38 %] and overlapped error rates [0.13 %] p=0.00016). b Impact of overlapping reads on MS error rates for the FG library preparation method. Overlapping reads did not significantly reduce error rate for the FG library preparation method (t-test comparing forward [mean 0.50 %] and overlapped error rates [0.42 %] p=0.36). It is also worth mentioning here that not all the reads overlapped, for example, for the MS platform, and with the given settings in PANDAseq (as discussed in the main text), the statistics for the percentage of reads that were assembled successfully are: 80.93 % (1^st quantile); 89.02 % (median); 81.07 % (mean); and 95.67 % (3^rd quantile)