Here’s the correction for “Effects of moderate electrical stimulation on reactive species production by primary rat skeletal muscle cells: Cross-talk between superoxide and nitric oxide production,” in the Journal of Cellular Physiology:
After the publication of this manuscript we observed an error in Figure 2. The representative images for the results of the E + DPI and C + CCCP groups (Fig. 2b and f, respectively) were replaced. The mean values, standard errors of means, legends, discussion and conclusions are the same as in the original article. Please, accept our apologies and refer to the correct corresponding Figure 2b and f that we provide in this erratum.
Figure 2. Effects of electrical stimulation on superoxide production by: (1) skeletal muscle NADPH oxidase complex evaluated by (a) cytochrome c reduction assay and (b) by DHE oxidation assay in the presence and absence of DPI (NADPH oxidase inhibitor); (2) skeletal muscle xanthine oxidase enzyme evaluated by (c) cytochrome c reduction assay and (d) by DHE oxidation assay in the presence and absence of allopurinol (xanthine oxidase inhibitor); (3) skeletal muscle mitochondria evaluated by (e) cytochrome c reduction assay and (f) by DHE oxidation assay in the presence and absence of CCCP, a mitochondrial uncoupler. Muscle cells were incubated for 1 h in the presence or absence of the moderate electrical stimulus. Representative examples are shown above graphs. The values are presented as means ± SEM. *P < 0.05 for comparison between groups. C, control; E, electrical stimulated.
The paper has been cited just once, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge, by another paper by Curi’s group.
We’re Curi-ous, you might say, about “we observed an error” (emphasis ours) in the new notice. We’re pretty sure someone other than the authors observed the error. But hey, as long as the scientific record is corrected, right?