Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2013 Oct 5.
Published in final edited form as: J Proteome Res. 2012 Sep 14;11(10):5059–5064. doi: 10.1021/pr300638n

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Comparison of the performance of ERLIC vs RP. (a) Venn diagram displaying the number of nonredundant peptide spectral matches across triplicate ERLIC and RP online LC-MS runs, showing the increase in number of peptides identified in ERLIC, as well as a modest overlap between techniques. (b) Venn diagram for the number of proteins identified at the ≥2-peptide per protein level in triplicate ERLIC and RP online LC-MS runs, showing the increase in proteins identified in ERLIC with almost complete coverage of those found in RP. (c) Distribution of isoelectric points of peptides identified across triplicate ERLIC and RP online LC-MS runs. ERLIC retains almost exclusively acidic peptides, whereas RP better retains peptides across all pI values.