{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014866204162537165, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.558441558441558, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The distribution of charged amino acids in mitochondrial inner-membrane proteins suggests different modes of membrane integration for nuclearly and mitochondrially encoded proteins.

We have analyzed the amino acid distribution in seven nuclearly encoded and five mitochondrially encoded inner membrane proteins with experimentally well characterized topologies. The mitochondrially encoded proteins conform to the 'positive inside' rule, i.e. they have many more positively charged residues in their non-translocated as compared to translocated domains. However, most of the nuclearly encoded proteins do not show such a bias but instead have a surprisingly skewed distribution of Glu residues with an almost ten times higher frequency in the intermembrane space than in the matrix domains. These findings suggest that some, but possibly not all, nuclearly encoded inner membrane proteins may insert into the membrane by a mechanism that does not depend on the distribution of positively charged amino acids.