There were errors in the Competing interests section of the article, and in several other locations.

The Competing interests should read: The authors have the following interests. This study was partly funded by VetCell Bioscience Ltd. RKS was a director of VetCell Bioscience Ltd, UK from 2002 - 2010. There are patents on the cell suspension technique held by VetCell (Patent numbers WO2004022078; EP 1 545 567 B1; EP 2 316 462 A1; US2013/0039896 A1 - Pharmaceutical kits comprising mesenchymal stem cells). There are no other patents, products in development or marketed products to declare. This does not alter their adherence to all the PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials, as detailed online in the guide for authors.

The second sentence of the second paragraph of the Abstract should read: Specifically, treated tendons had lower structural stiffness (p=0.061) although no significant difference in calculated modulus of elasticity, lower (improved) histological scoring of organisation (p&0.003) and crimp pattern (p&0.05), lower cellularity (p&0.007), DNA content (p&0.05), vascularity (p&0.03), water content (p&0.05), GAG content (p&0.05), and MMP-13 activity (p&0.02).

The first sentence of the second paragraph of the subsection "In vitro analysis" should read: A similar pattern was seen for tendon stiffness with the treated SDFT having lower overall tendon structural stiffness than the control SDFT (by ~25% of the mean value; p=0.061) and was similar to the stiffness of the contralateral tendon (2%) (Figure 4).

The first sentence of the last paragraph of the Discussion section should read: The reduction in sGAG levels in the treated group compared to the controls, which was only just outside the normal range, was considered a positive outcome, again representative at least in part, of a regenerative effect or normalisation of the healed tendon tissue closer to that of normal tendon.