Fig. 1. Flow chart of DNA-Raptor code technology
Fig. 2. Flowchart of quaternary error correction coding process
Fig. 3. Screening plan process
Fig. 4. Coding process of DNA-Raptor code
Fig. 5. Encoding and decoding performance of LT code and Raptor code. (a) Change curves of degree value and frequency; (b) change curves of redundancy and decoding success rate
Fig. 6. Information symbol frequency of two plans. (a) DNA-Raptor code; (b) DNA fountain code
Fig. 7. Frequency of information symbols in DNA fountain code
Redundancy /% | Errorprobability /% | Error rateafter decoding /% |
---|
13.33 | 0.02 | 0 | 0.04 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.003 | 0.20 | 0.011 |
|
Table 1. Results of quaternary RS error correction code
Plan | A | B |
---|
Coding efficiency per basic /bit | 1.46 | 1.46 | Time /s | 0.56 | 0.61 |
|
Table 2. Comparison of screening plan performance
File | Inputdata /KB | Coding efficiencyper basic /bit | Time /s |
---|
Text | 9 | 1.463 | 0.556 | Video | 523 | 1.501 | 127.729 | Picture | 53 | 1.493 | 2.113 | Average | - | 1.486 | - |
|
Table 3. Performance parameters of DNA-Raptor storage framework
Plan | Ref. [6] | Ref. [5] | Ref. [15] | Ref. [4] | Ref. [16] | Ref. [7] | Proposed |
---|
Coding efficiency per basic /bit | 0.83 | 0.33 | 1.14 | 0.88 | 0.92 | 1.57 | 1.49 | Redundancy /% | 17.00 | 79.11 | 35.96 | 44.30 | 42.50 | 20.71 | 23.52 | Error correction | No | Repetition | RS | No | Repetition | RS | Quaternary RS | Full recovery | No | No | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes |
|
Table 4. Performance of different DNA information storage plans
Plan | Coding efficiencyper basic /bit | Time /s |
---|
DNA-Raptor | 1.46 | 0.55 | DNA-LT | 1.54 | 0.84 |
|
Table 5. Performance comparison between DNA-Raptor code and DNA fountain code