Talk:Nuclear localization sequence

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

References

I'm not sure why the references that were originaly here weren't properly marked in the text. Anyways, I've left them for someone else to clean and prett-i-fy... I just added a reference to the classical NLS.
--128.227.57.133 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

6-4-2020 Hi there is an incorrect ref 2 should lead to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2668735/?from_term=chelsky+nuclear&from_sort=date&from_pos=4

Focus?

This article seems to be really focused on the action that is nuclear import' rather than nuclear localization signals. Maybe some discussion about NLSs and disorder, or the different types of NLSs would be good.

I've split the article to put "nuclear import signals" and "mechanism of nuclear import" in different sections, and added a section on nuclear export (currently no more than a link to the Wikipedia article on nuclear export signals). --Rogier Stuger

Merger proposal

The nuclear export signal and nuclear localization signal have a lot of overlap. They are also best discussed together. Since Wikipedia is not a dictionary, the two articles should be merged. 21 articles link to nuclear export signal compared to 51 to nuclear localization signal. I propose merging nuclear export signal to nuclear localization signal.--Chibibrain (talk) 06:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- While I understand your intent in merging the two articles nuclear export signal with nuclear localization signal, I feel that it would not be appropriate to merge them under nuclear localization signal, because NLS specifically refers to the import of proteins into the nucleus, while the NES refers to the export. Combining both export and import under the "import" article does not make sense. Instead, I would suggest that we find a name for an article that encompasses both nuclear localization signal and nuclear export signal. Until then, we will keep them separate. --comcc (talk) 09:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that merging these two articles will increase confusion, a general article about protein trafficking is lacking to explain to the reader that proteins have to be directed to the different part of the cell. --Chandres (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is an article, Protein targeting, which deals with translocation with the other membrane-bound organelles, such as the mitochondria, but it says pretty much nothing about nuclear translocation. If there is a merge, which I think should happen under the general heading of something like protein sorting (in eukaryotes), then these two articles up for merger should go into Protein targeting as a heading. my 2 cents. Rhetth (talk) 23:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting proposal, however, that may cause confusion and unnecessary complexity in that there would suggest there may be different mechanisms in other phyla such as prokaryotes, archia and indicates necessity for creation of a dozen new fragment articles etc. It's fine as it is now; an article about the nuclear localization signal (protein importing) and the nuclear export signal. Unfortunately, whilst it is human nature to categorise everything, this is a case where merging is incorrect (they are different mechanisms) and may cause unnecessary confusion if they are merged. Same way Lemon and Orange are in different articles even though they are both Citrus. Anon. 20:05, 6 June 2010 (EST)

They should not be merged, since they discuss different things. nuclear localisation signals are only involved in the import of proteins, not import and export. This is an unfortunate historical fact.BenJWoodcroft (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles may have overlap, but in essence are discussing separate subjects. I think they should not be merged. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 07:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have done something bold, and removed the merger proposal. BenJWoodcroft (talk) 10:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More examples needed?

Maybe there should be some examples of processes that involve NLS's, as well as how nuclear import differs from other intracellular transport such as vesicular. This would help to distinguish why NLS are necessary in transport of certain cell products. Jtrivedi92 (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]