After publication of this article , concerns were noted in the following figures:
- Fig 5, the ACMV-mir-5-1 panel appears to be the same as the ACMV-mir-5-3 panel.
- Fig 6, the miR4390 appears to be the same as the miR4399 panel.
PCR products of 60 bp were amplified in two plants co-infected with ACMV and EACMV: S2C6, S4C6,–RT control. Actin (76 bp) was used as internal control.
PCR products of 60 bp were amplified. Lanes 1 to 4 are three infected and one non—infected cassava plant samples, respectively: S4C4, S2C6, S4C6, B2C15,–RT control. Lanes 6–7 are one infected and one non-infected Jatropha plant samples, respectively: K5J5, S4J12. Actin (76 bp) was used as internal control.
The authors acknowledge that an error was made during figure preparation for Fig 5 image of ACMV-mir 5–3 and Fig 6 image of miR430 due to the similarity in the images. The authors have provided replacement images for Fig 5 ACMV-mir-5-3 and Fig 6 miR4390 panels
The authors apologize for the errors in the published article.
- 1. Maghuly F, Ramkat RC, Laimer M (2014) Virus versus Host Plant MicroRNAs: Who Determines the Outcome of the Interaction? PLoS ONE 9(6): e98263. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0098263 pmid:24896088
Citation: Maghuly F, Ramkat RC, Laimer M (2019) Correction: Virus versus Host Plant MicroRNAs: Who Determines the Outcome of the Interaction? PLoS ONE 14(4): e0215588. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0215588
Published: April 12, 2019
Copyright: © 2019 Maghuly et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.