<p>The core FFAT-like motifs and immediate neighbours (6 amino-terminal and 2 carboxy-terminal) are shown for all sequences expressed in this study. Residues that might contribute to local charge (D, E, S, T, K or R) are in capitals, all others in lower case. Residues in bold indicate substitutions tested in this study. The number of other residues in the flanks of expressed constructs is also given. Full sequences and their precise origins are given in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0030455#pone.0030455.s008" target="_blank">Table S5</a>.</p><p>“local ±” is the sum of charges in eight residues flanking the motif (six before and two after): K/R = +1 and D/E = –1.</p><p>“H” indicates that the region is predicted to be helical, <b>in bold</b> if known to be helical in structural studies (details in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0030455#pone.0030455.s005" target="_blank">Table S2</a>).</p><p>“TSR” is the “Targeting Strength Ratio” measured from nuclear profiles (see <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0030455#s4" target="_blank">Materials & Methods</a>), indicating the strength of NE targeting.</p><p>“# sub-opt” is the number of sub-optimal elements in each motif, determined according to the method set out in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0030455#pone.0030455.s005" target="_blank">Table S2</a>. Lower scores indicate a more optimal motif. Where the motif tested was multimerized the figures are in brackets, as they are not directly comparable.</p
