This Editorial Note is issued to provide an update to the Expression of Concern notice previously issued on this article [1, 2].

At the time the interim Expression of Concern notice was issued [2], the authors were in the process of repeating the experiments underlying the results presented in Figs 6 and 7. Due to the time needed to conduct and review these experiments, the replication data were not included with the Expression of Concern notice [2] and are being provided in this follow-up notice. Information on the repeat experiments and how these data affect the published results is available with this notice. The results of repeat experiments were assessed by a reviewer of the original article, who concluded that the repeat experiment data are consistent with the original study and that the overall conclusions stand.

Specifically, the authors repeated the qRT-PCR experiments presented in Figs 6 and 7 and re-evaluated heading time and leaf number using samples from new plant material. The supporting data for the modified Figs 6 and 7 are provided in the S1 File available with this notice.

The authors state that the major conclusions reported in the original study remain unaffected, but that the replicate experiments highlighted some differences in the expression results reported in the originally published Figs 6 and 7 (see S2 File) and corresponding Results and Discussion sections. In addition, the authors discovered that they erroneously calculated days to heading data for the non-vernalized plants (originally published Figs 6A and 7A, panel NV), using the germination day instead of the day when the NV plants were at the same developmental stage as the other plants at the end of the vernalization treatments. This resulted in the incorrect addition of 18 d to the heading time of the NV plants). In the updated data set provided in the S1 File and in Figs 6A and 7A, the 18 d were subtracted for all genotypes in the NV panels. This change does not affect the statistical comparisons among genotypes within the NV treatment.

The specific changes to the article’s results are described in Table 1 below.

The small differences in expression described above do not affect any of the critical differences among genotypes or any of the conclusions reported in this manuscript.

In light of these differences this article [1] was republished on December 13, 2024, to update Figs 6 and 7, and multiple paragraphs of the respective Results and Discussion sections discussing the Fig 6 and Fig 7 results. Please download this article again to view the correct version. The original version of the published article remains available in the S2 File provided with this notice. The S3 File highlights the changes made to the article’s text at the time of republication.

The PLOS Publication Ethics team reviewed this case in collaboration with the PLOS Genetics Editors, and carefully considered case details including the confirmed data manipulation, the observation that the data in question comprise a relatively minor portion of the results, and the reliability of the article’s main findings as demonstrated by the repeat data and supported by an Editorial Board member. PLOS issues this Editorial Note to inform readers that the Expression of Concern [2], issued previously to inform readers of the data manipulation concerns and that findings in the originally published Figs 6 and 7 (see S2 File) are unreliable, is final. However, the journal stands by the article once amended with this notice to include these alerts and the data obtained in repeat experiments.