Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeCorrections
Posted by AkihikoMurata on 26 Sep 2014 at 02:38 GMT
Figure 1, Figure 2 and Figure 6 are wrongly published previous versions before the revising.
Errors are as follows:
Figure 1A: The positive signal of the expression of Dll4 on OP9-Dll1 cells in the current paper is an artifact. In the revised figure, OP9-Dll1 cells do not express Dll4 on their surfaces.
Figure 2C: The adhesion assay shown as Figure 2C was conducted with an anti-Dll4 mAb (clone: HMD4-2) that was not mentioned in this paper. The revised version of this figure is conducted with an anti-Dll4 mAb (clone: HMD4-1), and shown as separated figures (Figure 2C; the data with anti-Dll1 mAb, Figure 2D; the data with anti-Dll4 mAb) as described in the figure legend. HMD4-1 is also an antagonistic mAb, and also significantly inhibited the adhesion of MCs to OP9-Dll4 in the revised version of this figure.
Figure 6D and 6E: Data of adhesion assays at 37o C (Figure 6D) and on non-fixed OP9 cells (Figure 6E) are missing.
The main text and the figure legends are correct. We sincerely apologize for these errors. We will correct these figures as quickly as possible.
9/26/2014
Akihiko Murata. Ph. D.