Previously we showed that xenobiotic-inducible cytochrome P450 (CYP) proteins are bimodally targeted to the endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria. In the present study, we investigated the mechanism of delivery of chimeric signal-containing CYP proteins to the peripheral and channel-forming mitochondrial outer membrane translocases (TOMs). CYP؉33/1A1 and CYP2B1 did not require peripheral TOM70, TOM20, or TOM22 for translocation through the channel-forming TOM40 protein. In contrast, CYP؉5/1A1 and CYP2E1 were able to bypass TOM20 and TOM22 but required TOM70. CYP27, which contains a canonical cleavable mitochondrial signal, required all of the peripheral TOMs for its mitochondrial translocation. We investigated the underlying mechanisms of bypass of peripheral TOMs by CYPs with chimeric signals. The results suggested that interaction of CYPs with Hsp70, a cytosolic chaperone involved in the mitochondrial import, alone was sufficient for the recognition of chimeric signals by peripheral TOMs. However, sequential interaction of chimeric signal-containing CYPs with Hsp70 and Hsp90 resulted in the bypass of peripheral TOMs, whereas CYP27 interacted only with Hsp70 and was not able to bypass peripheral TOMs. Our results also show that delivery of chimeric signal-containing client proteins by Hsp90 required the cytosol-exposed N-terminal 143 amino acids of TOM40. TOM40 devoid of this domain was unable to bind CYP proteins. These results suggest that, compared with the unimodal mitochondria-targeting signals, the chimeric mitochondriatargeting signals are highly evolved and dynamic in nature.Protein targeting to different subcellular compartments is directed by specific N-terminal or internal signals, which serve as destination-specific mail delivery codes (1, 2). The signal sequences of proteins targeted to different membrane compartments, such as the endoplasmic reticulum (ER), 2 peroxisomes, and mitochondria, vary markedly in terms of amino acid sequence, hydrophobicity, and secondary structure and interact with distinctly different sets of carrier proteins, receptors, and protein translocator complexes (3-8). These observations have led to a widely accepted view that most protein targeting signals are unimodal in nature, which in turn restricts the destination of a given protein to a single subcellular compartment.ER-targeted proteins contain a distinct N-terminal hydrophobic signal for binding to a signal recognition particle, which in turn targets the emerging nascent chains to the ER (9). With certain exceptions (1, 10), ER targeting is thought to be cotranslational. Current models of protein targeting imply that the ER or mitochondrial destination of a protein is determined at the pretranslational level by virtue of the signal sequence that the protein carries. Many mitochondria-and ER-targeted proteins are encoded by a distinct set of genes. In a limited number of cases, characteristic mitochondrial targeting sequences are generated by differential expression of the gene using either alternate transcription/tr...