Skip to main content
. 2019 Jan 28;18:17. doi: 10.1186/s12934-019-1066-4

Table 3.

Comparison of all screened signal sequences used in this study

No. SP Sequences Length (aa) Type Origins D value
1 pelB MKYLLPTAAAGLLLLAAQPAMA 22 Sec E. coli 0.512
2 phoD MAYDSRFDEWVQKLKEESFQNNTFDRRKFIQGAGKIAGLSLGLTIAQSVGAFEVNA 56 Tat B. subtilis 0.245
3 pel MKKVMLATALFLGLTPAGANA 21 Sec B. subtilis 0.258
4 ywbN MSDEQKKPEQIHRRDILKWGAMAGAAVA 28 Tat B. subtilis 0.526
5 lipA MKFVKRRIIALVTILMLSVTSLFALQPSAKAA 32 Sec B. subtilis 0.332
6 protA MKKKNIYSIRKLGVGIASVTLGTLLISGGVTPAANA 36 Sec S. aureus 0.500
7 ywmC MKKRFSLIMMTGLLFGLTSPAFA 23 Sec B. subtilis 0.358
8 dacB MRIFKKAVFVIMISFLIATVNVNTAHA 27 Sec B. subtilis 0.478
9 nprE MGLGKKLSVAVAASFMSLSISLPGVQA 27 Sec B. subtilis 0.225
10 yddT MRKKRVITCVMAASLTLGSLLPAGYASA 28 Sec B. subtilis 0.282
11 yoqM MKLRKVLTGSVLSLGLLVSASPAFA 25 Sec B. subtilis 0.339
12 yvcE MRKSLITLGLASVIGTSSFLIPFTSKTASA 30 Sec B. subtilis 0.322