Talk:Signal peptide

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Biophysics (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BiophysicsWikipedia:WikiProject BiophysicsTemplate:WikiProject BiophysicsBiophysics articles

Length of signal peptides

There seems to be an inconsistancy in the length of signal peptides ...a short (15-60 amino acids long) peptide chain... vs the length of some signal peptides discussed below (peroxisomal localization signal, ER retention signal, some NLSses). --User:AAM | Talk 18:38, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has to do with the general confusion I've seen in Wikipedia regarding the difference between a signal peptide and protein targeting in general. ER retention, peroxisomal, NLSs, mitochondrial transit peptides, and probably others are NOT signal peptides. A signal peptide (in my experience as a PhD student studying protein targeting) refers specifically to an N terminal hydrophobic region.BenJWoodcroft (talk) 13:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Only post-translationally?

To my knowledge, the translocation to the ER is considered a co-translational, rather than a post-translational process. Therefore, the first sentence ("A signal peptide is a short (3-60 amino acids long) peptide chain that directs the post-translational transport of a protein.") is not entirely correct. Now, one possibility would be to change it to "co- or post-translational transport", but obviously proteins can not be transported in any other way than co- or post-translationally. I would thus delete this attribute and just leave it with "transport"... Any suggestions? Sorry for the un-signed post, this is the first time I am editing something at Wiki :)

You can sign your posts with 4 tildes. Wwood (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the note. I am changing the article according to my former suggestion. M!ke (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Signal Peptides vs. Target Peptides

Referring to changes made in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Signal_peptide&oldid=279296807 I'm a bit confused myself here. This wiki article is the first time I've seen the term signal peptide refer generally to hydrophobic sequences, mitochondrial targeting sequences, and chloroplast/apicoplast. Usually it is just the hydrophobic one. Is the confusion only in this wiki entry?Wwood (talk) 03:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no evidence that the term Signal peptide is used to describe anything except the N-terminal signal peptide that mediates secretion. This article appears misleading to me. Can anyone provide any evidence to the contrary? Alexbateman (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This page should contain just info on translocon-targeting peptides and the rest of the info should migrate to a new page called "traget peptides". Microtubules (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]