Skip to main content
. 2021 Jul 6;120(16):3382–3391. doi: 10.1016/j.bpj.2021.06.031

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Comparison between the length of the lpLCRs and other LCRs in FG Nups and DisProt. (A) Boxplot of length of longest positive LCRs, second-longest positive LCRs, and third-longest positive LCRs in each protein in FG Nups and DisProt data sets (briefly mentioned as FG and Dis, respectively). Longest positive LCRs in FG Nups are significantly longer than second- and third-longest positive LCRs in FG Nups and all of the LCRs in DisProt. (B) Boxplot of the gap between length of first- and second-longest positive LCRs (shown as FG (1,2) and Dis (1,2)) and second- and third-longest positive LCRs (shown as FG (2,3) and Dis (2,3)) for proteins in FG Nups and DisProt (briefly mentioned as FG and Dis, respectively). The gap between the length of the longest and second-longest positive LCR in FG Nups is much larger than the gap between the second- and third-longest positive LCRs in FG Nups and the gap between the longest and second-longest and the gap between second-longest and third-longest positive LCRs in DisProt. (C) Boxplot of the ratio of the length of first- and second-longest positive LCRs (shown as FG(1/2) and Dis(1/2)) and second- and third-longest positive LCRs (shown as FG(2/3) and Dis(2/3)) for proteins in FG Nups and DisProt (briefly mentioned as FG and Dis, respectively). The ratio between the length of first and second positive LCRs in FG Nups is higher than the other three categories. All three panels show that the distribution of length of longest positive LCRs in FG Nups is different from the other categories, and lpLCRs in FG Nups are significantly longer than other LCRs. To see this figure in color, go online.