The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that certain of the western blotting assay data shown in Figs. 1C and 4C, and the tumor images shown in Fig. 5A were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere, or were already under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


In addition, the authors independently contacted the Editorial Office to request that this paper be retracted owing to the fact that they had not obtained approval from the Ethics Committee of The Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University to use the tissue samples, even though they had written that this study was approved by the Ethics Committee, and written informed consent had been provided by all patients enrolled in the research.Oncology Reports, and the authors' own admission of serious problems concerning the ethical nature of the study, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors have agreed to the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere, or were already under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


Pharmaceutical Biology, have retracted the following article:We, the Editors and Publisher of Authors: Xiaoyan Wang, Fang Xie, Xiaofeng Zhou, Ting Chen, Ye Xue, and Wei WangArticle: 18β-Glycyrrhetinic acid inhibits the apoptosis of cells infected with rotavirus SA11 via the Fas/FasL pathwayJournal: Pharmaceutical Biology10.1080/13880209.2021.1961821Volume 59; 2021; Pages 1096–1103; DOI: The authors noticed that some of the graphs and controls in Figure 3A and Figure 4A were similar. Upon further investigation, the authors realised they had made errors when creating the graphs and figures, leading to inconsistent results. In view of these problems, the authors contacted the journal to request a retraction.We have been informed in our decision-making by our policy on publishing ethics and integrity and the COPE guidelines on retractions.The retracted article will remain online to maintain the scholarly record, but it will be digitally watermarked on each page as “Retracted”.


RSC Advances article due to concerns with the reliability of the data in the published article.The Royal Society of Chemistry, with the agreement of the named authors, hereby wholly retracts this 3O4 XRD pattern in the region ∼7–12 theta, and also within the CMC-g-MB XRD pattern in the region ∼7–10 theta. An independent expert was consulted who was not satisfied with the explanation provided by the authors. The authors provided replacement XRD data, however upon review, the expert found that the new data for both Fe3O4 and CMC-g-MB appeared very different from the original manuscript.In Fig. 1F, there are unexpected similarities within the baseline of the Feii) and CMC-g-MB-HNO3 appear to be identical in the region of ∼12–60 theta, but differ in the region below 12 theta. The expert was not satisfied with the authors’ explanation and concluded that there was some degree of manipulation to try and make the two XRD patterns appear to be different. The authors provided replacement XRD patterns, but the expert concluded that they were very different from those presented in the original manuscript and would affect the original discussion in the manuscript.The XRD patterns presented in Fig. 8A for CMC-g-MB-Co(The 0 min and 5 min XPS spectra in Fig. S3B are identical in the regions above 102 eV, and below ∼97 eV, but differ in the region of 97–102 eV. Upon a vertical compression, the region of 97–102 eV of the 5 min spectrum is also identical to the same region of the 15 min spectrum. The authors admitted that the 5 min spectrum was computer-generated to show the expected/desired result that they would then confirm experimentally and was not intended to be used in the article. The authors carried out the XPS measurements for CMC-g-MB treated with 0, 5 and 15 min of RF plasma again, and requested to publish the replacement data. However, the expert was not satisfied with the response and raised additional concerns regarding the reliability of the raw data provided by the authors.Furthermore, after analysing the raw data txt files and Origin files provided by the authors for Fig. 1F, 8A and S3B, the expert found that the numbers in the raw data txt files did not match the numbers given in the Origin files. The expert therefore was not satisfied that the raw data provided by the authors was reliable.Given the significance of the concerns about the validity of the data in the published paper and the raw data, the findings presented in this paper are no longer reliable.The other authors were contacted but did not respond.Signed: Rui Hu, Masaaki NagatsuDate: 3rd November 2022RSC AdvancesRetraction endorsed by Laura Fisher, Executive Editor,


Microbiology Resource Announcements (MRA) are issuing this Expression of Concern regarding the following publication:The American Society for Microbiology (ASM) and Campylobacter coli bacteriophage CAM-P21. Microbiol Resour Announc 10:e00223-21. https://doi.org/10.1128/MRA.00223-21.Huang H-H, Zhang Y, Asoshima N, Duc HM, Sato J, Masuda Y, Honjoh K-I, Miyamoto T. 2021. Complete genome sequence of Campylobacter phage CAM-P21 with GenBank accession number MW462221 are as follows:The sequence does not include the three universal features of myoviruses: capsid biosynthetic proteins, packaging proteins , and lysis proteins.QRW43453 is a virion morphogenesis protein, as stated in the paper.HHpred analysis of the sequence showed no evidence that the protein submitted under NCBI accession number MRA was notified by a reader that sequence data reported in this paper are potentially inaccurate/incomplete. The concerns regarding ASM sent an inquiry to the authors and requested a response along with the original, underlying data regarding these concerns. ASM has not received a response addressing the concerns with the published data. This Expression of Concern is issued pending the authors’ response and will be updated accordingly thereafter. If MRA and ASM do not receive the complete sequencing data and a thorough explanation to the above-mentioned concerns within 6 months, then ASM will proceed with a Publisher’s Retraction of this paper.


Cell Death and Disease 10.1038/s41419-019-1894-5, published online 09 September 2019Correction to: The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake. After the publication of this paper in Cell Death and Disease in 2019, the authors noted an error in Figure 2a, in that, the YAP blot for the SMMC-7721 cells was by mistake duplicated for the Bel-7402 cells. The correct YAP blot for Bel-7402 is now included in the figure given here. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.


In the original publication , there wThe authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The authors wish to bring to the readers' attention the following errors in the article by Jin Zhang and Shan Ju, ‘Identifying genuine protein–protein interactions within communities of gene co‐expression networks using a deconvolution method’.In Section 5 Acknowledgements, one grant/award number was omitted. ‘XBS’ should be ‘XBS1822’.


The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.


PROTOCOL: The impact of detention on the health of asylum seekers: A protocol for a systematic review’ was inadvertently published in the incorrect, volume 13, Issue 1. The cover page of the PDF had the wrong date on it, and the publication date of the protocol says 2 January 2017, which is wrong. The correct publication date is 2 January 2014.The article listed below, intended for publication in Campbell Systematic Reviews, Volume 10, Issue 1, an issue entitled ‘


Bioscience Reports at the request of the authors due to technical reasons that they feel unable to address. This Retraction also takes place following receipt of a notification from a reader alerting the Editorial Office to similarities in figure panels across other published papers with no common authors. Figure panels of concern include 2C (common images across papers), 4F  and 5C/F (common images across papers). The authors are unable to correct the article and wish to retract the article. The Editor-in-Chief and Editorial Board agree with the Retraction.This article is being retracted from


Journal of Healthcare Engineering has retracted the article titled “Effectiveness and Prognosis: Drainage Skin-Bridge Sparing Surgery Combined with Fistulotomy vs. Fistulotomy Only in the Treatment of Anal Fistula” [Fistula”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifiThe authors do not agree with the retraction.


The authors regret that the funding information in the Acknowledgements section of the original article was incorrectly shown.The correct funding information is as follows: The present research was financially supported by: (iii) the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant no. 847413 and PMW programme of the Minister of Science and Higher Education in the years 2020–2024 no. 5005/H2020-MSCA-COFUND/2019/2. The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


In the original publication , there wThe correct figures are attached below:The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.


Journal of Healthcare Engineering has retracted the article titled “Application of Intelligent Medical Equipment Management System Based on Internet of Things Technology” [hnology”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


In


Retraction: Cancer Cell Int (2021) 21:54 10.1186/s12935-021-01749-7The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. After publication, the authors contacted the journal asking to retract the article because of issues with some experiments, but did not specify those issues. Upon further examination, unexpected similarities were found between western blots presented for different samples, for example panels 4f and 4g. The authors did not provide further comments or raw data. Therefore, the Editors-in-Chief have lost confidence in the data presented here. The authors have not explicitly stated whether they agree to this retraction notice.


In the published article, there were errors in affiliations 5–10.In affiliation 5, instead of “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Infectious Diseases CIBERINF, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain,” it should be “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Infectious Diseases (CIBERINF), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.”In affiliation 6, instead of “Clinical Genetics Department, Laboratori Clínic Metropolitana Nord, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Institut Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Badalona, Spain,” it should be “Clinical Genetics Department, Laboratori Clínic Metropolitana Nord, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Institut d'Investigació en Ciències de la Salut Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Badalona, Spain.”In affiliation 7, instead of “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Infectious Diseases CIBERINF, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain,” it should be “Microbiology Department, Laboratori Clínic Metropolitana Nord, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Institut d'Investigació en Ciències de la Salut Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Badalona, Spain.”In affiliation 8, instead of “Microbiology Department, Laboratori Clínic Metropolitana Nord, Hospital Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol, Institut Universitari Germans Trias i Pujol (IGTP), Badalona, Spain,” it should be “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Respiratory Diseases (CIBERES), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.”In affiliation 9, instead of “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Respiratory Diseases CIBERES, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain,” it should be “Department of Genetics and Microbiology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola, Spain.”In affiliation 10, instead of “Department of Genetics and Microbiology, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Cerdanyola, Spain,” it should be “Biomedical Research Networking Center in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBERESP), Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Madrid, Spain.”The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Dear Editor,We have read the manuscript “The relationship between thiol-disulfide balance and idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss” in press in BJORLSecondly, the authors probably mistakenly stated that paraoxonase is a “lipid metabolism product” and “PON1 is an organophosphate”. However, it is clear from the literature that paraoxonase is an enzyme which hydrolyses oxidised lipids.4Finally, the authors also state “Elevated PON levels are related to atherosclerosis”. The reference given to justify this statement (citation 19 in Ref.These inaccuracies may seem minor to those not in the field; however, they are important and need correcting before they have time to spread.The authors declare no conflicts of interest.


The authors regret that they forgot to add the correct supplementary Table S2 in the supplementary data section. The correct supplementary Table S2 corresponds to unsaturated and saturated fatty acids of strains Marseille-P3761T and Marseille-P3195T instead of the phenotypic characteristics of the Marseille-P3761 and Marseille-P3195 strains obtained by using API ZYM. The phenotypic characteristics obtained by using API ZYM should be presented with those of API 50CH in Supplementary Table S1. The authors would like to apologize for the inconvenience caused.Supplementary file1 (DOCX 426 KB)Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.


Journal of Healthcare Engineering has retracted the article titled “MicroRNA-517c Functions as a Tumor Suppressor in Hepatocellular Carcinoma via Downregulation of KPNA2 and Inhibition of PI3K/AKT Pathway” [Following an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive any reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Given the multiple instances of overlapping data panels that have been identified in the compilation of the figures in this article, the Editor of


Retraction Note: Nanoscale Research Letters (2022) 17:50 10.1186/s11671-022-03687-3The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article because an investigation by the Publisher has shown evidence of authorship manipulation. The contributions of the listed authors cannot be confirmed and the Editors-in-Chief no longer have confidence in the content of the article. Ehsan Kianfar disagrees with this retraction. Nguyen Dinh Trung, Dinh Tran Ngoc Huy, Maria Jade Catalan Opulencia, Holya A. Lafta, Azher M. Abed, Hoang Van Thuc Master and Ali Thaeer Hammid have not responded to correspondence from the Publisher about this retraction. The Publisher was not able to find a current email address for Dmitry Olegovich Bokov and Kahramon Shomurodov.


Authors’ affiliations and their roles in the supervisory activities of the Fukushima Health Management Survey as of fiscal year 2022 (in square brackets)* Affiliation 1 denotes the main affiliation


Retraction note to: Mol Cancer 19, 85 (2020)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12943-020-01206-5The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, the authors alerted the journal that there were errors in Figs. 3b, 4j, S2g and S2h, resulting in overlap between images representing different treatment groups. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.Yiran Liang, Xiaojin Song, Yaming Li, Bing Chen, Wenjing Zhao, Lijuan Wang, Hanwen Zhang, Ying Liu, Dianwen Han, Ning Zhang, Yajie Wang, Fangzhou Ye, Dan Luo, Xiaoyan Li and Qifeng Yang agree to this retraction. Tingting Ma has not responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction.


Drosophila Species, Molecular Biology and Evolution, Volume 38, Issue 2, February 2021, Pages 437–448, https://doi.org/10.1093/molbev/msaa232This is a correction to: Joanna F D Hagen, Cláudia C Mendes, Shamma R Booth, Javier Figueras Jimenez, Kentaro M Tanaka, Franziska A Franke, Luis Baudouin-Gonzalez, Amber M Ridgway, Saad Arif, Maria D S Nunes, Alistair P McGregor, Unraveling the Genetic Basis for the Rapid Diversification of Male Genitalia between Sulf1 on chromosome arm 3R instead of Surf1 on chromosome arm 3L as reported.In the originally published version of this paper, the authors included re-analysis of phenotypic data from RNAi knockdown of genes reported in their previous publication, Tanaka et al. 2015 . The authors have since discovered an error in one of the RNAi lines used, which meant that they actually targeted the gene Sulf1 from the text of the paper, Figure 2 and supplementary files 5 and 6. The authors have also further clarified the genes that were first tested in Tanaka et al., (2015) and those data reanalysed here in the context of new mapping and gene expression data.The paper has been corrected to remove these data for


Journal of Healthcare Engineering has retracted the article titled “Analysis of the Effect of Nursing Intervention on Children with Respiratory Tract Infection Based on Comprehensive Nursing” [Nursing”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


Furthermore, they apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.After having consulted their original data, the authors have realized that these mice were correctly shown in the paper for the experiments portrayed in Fig. 7A; therefore, the corrected version of


The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article at the authors’ request. After publication, the authors became aware that the KYSE180 cells used in this study were cross-contaminated. Further checks by the publisher identified high similarity between the KYSE180 200 and 300 μM middle images. Additionally, the authors have stated that the number of injected cells for the in vivo tumor growth assay provided in the Materials and methods is incorrect.All authors agree to this retraction.


The authors regret that the original version of our manuscript contained some inadvertent errors regarding the representative images in Figure


Bioinformatics, Volume 38, Issue 10, 15 May 2022, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btac196This is a correction to: Manish Goel and Korbinian Schneeberger plotsr: visualizing structural similarities and rearrangements between multiple genomes, In the originally published version of the manuscript, there were errors in the details of affiliations for both authors. The affiliations should read:1Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology, LMU Munich, Großhaderner Str. 2, 82152 Planegg-Martinsried, Germany and 2Department of Chromosome Biology, Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research, Carl-von-Linné-Weg 10, 50829 Cologne, Germany”“instead of:1Faculty of Biology, LMU Munich, Planegg-Martinsried 82152, Germany and 2Department of Genetics, Faculty of Biology, LMU Munich, Germany”.“The publisher apologizes for these errors. The errors have now been corrected within the article.


The Editorial Office has been made aware of potential issues surrounding the scientific validity of this paper, hence has issued an expression of concern to notify readers whilst the Editorial Office investigates. The Figure 3C Inhibitor NC panel seems to appear in other papers by unrelated authors, specifically as the Figure 2D Si-Tcf3#3 image from He et al. 2019 (doi: 10.1042/bsr20180369) and as the 143B/sh-VAV3+inhibitor panel of Figure 6E from Xiao et al. 2020 (doi: 10.18632/aging.103762).


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that certain of the cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Figs. 2C and 5C were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere, or were already under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


Molecules several errors in our paper [A reader recently brought to the attention of the Editor-in-Chief and the Editorial Office of ur paper , with an1) Lane C without a loaded sample in  Lane C w1, Re, Rb1, Rb2, Rc and Rd in ginseng roots  were obtained using the HPLC gradient reported in Section 3.4 Quantification of Ginsenoside from Root Extracts, when in fact those conditions were used for the separation and quantification of the five ginsenosides Rg1, Re, Rb1, Rb2, and Rd, but not for ginsenoside Rc. As a result of a peer reviewer’s comment that the amount of Rc seemed unduly high, the original HPLC traces were re-examined in 2014 and it was noted that in several chromatograms the Rc peak was not resolved, resulting in erroneously high integration values in the thesis. The experiments were re-run using a modified solvent gradient that isolated the ginsenoside Rc peaks and gave lower values consistent with the literature and those results are the ones reported in [(2) It was claimed that the HPLC ginsenoside quantification results in  did not (3) All co-authors of the article have read and agree with the content of this Correction, except for Dr A. J. Chen, who in communications with the corresponding author and the Editorial Office has insisted for personal reasons on a retraction of the article rather than a correction. However, having examined the provided copies of HPLC traces and laboratory notebooks and the explanations provided by the authors, the Editor in Chief is satisfied that a correction without Dr Chen’s agreement and not a retraction is warranted for this paper.The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.


The authors would like to make a correction in a recently published paper .In the published publication, there was an error regarding the affiliation(s) for “Ramiro García”. In addition to affiliation(s) “1”, should be “Department of Civil Engineering, Construction, School of Civil Engineering, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28040 Madrid, Spain; garcia.ramiro@es.sika.com”. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


J Clin Invest. 2014;124(11):5057–5073. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI71882Original citation: J Clin Invest. 2022;132(10):e161196. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI161196Citation for this corrigendum: –/– Fcrg–/–Dap12 sample image in –/–Fcrg panels. The authors have reviewed the original source data and determined that the incorrect–RANKL, TKO sample was shown in –/–Fcrg image was shown in The authors recently became aware of errors in The authors regret the errors.


In “The Effects of a Virtual Reality–Based Training Program for Adolescents With Disruptive Behavior Problems on Cognitive Distortions and Treatment Motivation: Protocol for a Multiple Baseline Single-Case Experimental Design” :e33555) the authors noted an error.Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam) was inadvertently omitted. The corrected list of authors and their affiliations now appear as follows:In the originally published article, one of the affiliations of author Ramón J L Lindauer (1,2,3, MSc; Arne Popma1,3,4, MD, PhD; Ramón J L Lindauer3,4,5, MD, PhD; Levi van Dam2,6, PhDRenée E Klein Schaarsberg1Child and Adolescent Psychiatry & Psychosocial Care, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands2Dutch Innovation Network for Societal Youth Challenges, Garage2020, Amsterdam, Netherlands3Mental Health, Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam, Netherlands4Academic Center for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Levvel, Amsterdam, Netherlands5Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Amsterdam UMC location University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands6Department of Child Development and Education, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, NetherlandsThe correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on May 27, 2022, together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 20, 192 (2020)10.1186/s12906-020-02995-4The Editor has retracted this article. After publication, the authors became aware that the histology images in Fig. 1 C were not representative, and requested a Correction. Further assessment of the data by the Journal identified the following concerns:In Fig. 1D, there appears to be overlap between the NC and medium dose images.In Fig. 3 F, there appears to be overlap between model control and low dose images.In Fig. 3G, the resolution of the flow cytometry plots appears to be inconsistent. Specifically, the data point size in the medium group is larger than the other groups.Western blots in Fig. 3 H are presented in unnatural-looking backgrounds, with straight vertical and horizontal edges on some of the bands.Western blots in Fig. 3I appear to contain duplicated areas between the P38 and p-P38 images.The authors have provided some of the raw data to address these concerns, which contained further cases of overlap or did not support the presented results. Additionally, the authors have stated that part of the data were generated by a third party. The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the data presented in this article.All authors have agreed to this retraction but not to the wording of this retraction notice.


We would like to update thecontent of


The authors have retracted this article because it has been previously published by the same authors in a Chinese-language Journal . Shen-Yu


In spite of its central importance for human beings, emotion is still one of the least studied subjects among the life sciences  or cortisone, oxytocin, or sex hormone. Oxytocin has been recently found to be the neuromodulator for love and attachment  oxytocin, reciprocally coupled with vasopressin and (lower) testosterone.In the paper titled “Roles of Anxiety and Depression in Predicting Cardiovascular Disease Among Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Machine Learning Approach,” the authors Chu et al. tried to investigate the underlying neural mechanisms for the emotional problems that are related to cardiovascular diseases in a bio-psycho-social way.In the paper titled “Affective Face Processing Modified by Different Taste,” the author Liang et al. reported their studies about the cross-modal interaction between taste and emotional face search using two tastes (sweet and acid) to investigate the cross-modal interaction between taste and emotional face search and their underlying mechanisms.In the paper titled “Collectively, these studies demonstrate that neurotransmitters play an important role in emotion. We hope that this special issue will stimulate interest in the field of basic emotion.FW, RH, FP, JY, and JH wrote the paper. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.The paper was supported by a grant from Foundation of Humanities and Arts from the Ministry of Education in China (19YJAZH083).The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


The authors regret that the funding information was not included in the acknowledgements in the original article. The following acknowledgements should have been included:This work was supported in part by the Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC) through Engineering Fellowship for Growth—PRINTSKIN (EP/M002527/1) and neuPRINTSKIN (EP/R029644/1) and EPSRC ORCA – Partnership Resource Fund Project MUSES (EP/R026173/1). In addition, this work received support from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (AQUASENSE Project) under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No: H2020-MSCA-ITN-2018-813680.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


RSC Advances article due to concerns with the reliability of the data.The Royal Society of Chemistry hereby wholly retracts this Many of the published western blot panels contain duplicating features between the backgrounds of different panels, indicating that they have been manipulated. For example, there are duplicating features between the backgrounds of the panels in Fig. 6E (c-myc/MCF-7) and Fig. 7B (SOX4/MDA-MB-231). There are also duplicating features between the backgrounds of the SOX4/MCF-7 and SOX4/MDA-MB-231 panels in Fig. 7B.Three of the bands shown in Fig. 7D  also contain duplicating features, indicating that they have been artificially generated. There are also repeating fragments in the backgrounds of the two panels.The authors were asked to provide the raw data for this article, but did not respond. Given the significance of the concerns about the validity of the data, and the lack of raw data, the findings presented in this article are not reliable.The authors were informed but have not responded to any correspondence regarding the retraction.RSC AdvancesSigned: Laura Fisher, Executive Editor, Date: 18th August 2022


Following the publication of this article , concern○ Fig 7 (right panel), lanes 1 and 3.○ Fig 10A, lanes 2 and 4, and lanes 5 and 7 flipped horizontally.The following data appear similar despite representing different conditions:○ Fig 1, between lanes 1–2.○ Fig 3 (lower left panel), between lanes 1–2.○ Fig 7 (right panel), between lanes 2–3, 3–4 and 6–7.○ Fig 9 (right panel), between lanes 1–2.○ Fig 10A, between lanes 4–5.There appear to be vertical discontinuities in the following figures when colour levels are adjusted:The corresponding author stated that the raw image data underlying the above figures are no longer available. They acknowledged that the presented results are merged from multiple experiments, and stated that splice lines are clearly visible and were intentional.In relation to the concerns in Figs 7 and 10, the corresponding author acknowledged that the data in the lanes listed above appear similar, but asserted that they are not identical. In the absence of raw image data, the editors remain concerned about the integrity of these figures.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the integrity of these data, the AYS did not agree with the retraction and stands by the article’s findings. All other authors either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


Journal of Healthcare Engineering has retracted the article titled “Efficacy and Safety of Temozolomide Combined with Radiotherapy in the Treatment of Malignant Glioma” [ Glioma”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


In “Age- and Sex-Specific Differences in Multimorbidity Patterns and Temporal Trends on Assessing Hospital Discharge Records in Southwest China: Network-Based Study” : e27146) the authors noted one error.In the originally published paper, the denominator of Equation 2 was incorrect and should have been expressed as a square root.In the corrected version of the paper, the denominator of Equation 2 has been revised to a square root and is provided below. The calculations in the original publication were according to the correct version of Equation 2. The error in Equation 2 did not influence the results of the originally published paper.The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on June 16, 2022, together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


G. Pérez-García et al., RSC Adv., 2015, 5, 23255–23260.Correction for ‘Porous monoliths synthesized  The authors regret that there was an error in the results and discussion section of the original article. On page 23257, the text read, “The surfactant employed here was sorbitan monooleate”. This should have read, “The surfactant employed here was sorbitan stearate”.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that certain of the data shown for the cell migration and invasion assays in Figs. 2B and 4B were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere, or were already under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


In the original publication Figs. 1, 2 and 3 are incorrectly published, the correct Figs.


Experimental and Molecular Medicine 10.1038/emm.2017.98, published online 21 July 2017Retraction to: 1Figures 3a and 3b overlap with Figures 2b and 2c in Ref. 2Figure 3b overlaps with Figure 2C in Ref. The authors have retracted this article because of issues with two of the figures. Specifically:All authors agree with this retraction.


Monoclonal antibodies targeting the anti-SARS-CoV-2 spike (S) protein are prescribed in high-income countries to prevent severe disease in at-risk patients. Although studies report efficacy as between 50–85% , data confirm that immunocompromised patients with long-term SARS-CoV-2 replication are particularly susceptible to resistance and transmissible variant emergence  as well as their specific regional context .MH and AC wrote the first manuscript draft. All authors critically reviewed the manuscript, validated the final version, and agreed to be accountable for the content of the work.The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Chlamydomonas telomeric DNA’ by Aparna Bansal et al., RSC Adv., 2022, 12, 15918–15924, https://doi.org/10.1039/D2RA00861K.Correction for ‘A novel G·G·T non-conventional intramolecular triplex formed by the double repeat sequence of  The authors regret that an incorrect version of The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Retraction Note: J Exp Clin Cancer Res 39, 134 (2020)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13046-020-01626-7The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication it was noted that there was an overlap between the images in figures 3F, 3G and 8f. Furthermore irregularities have also been detected in figure 8C. The Editor-in-Chief has therefore lost confidence in the reliability of the results presented in this article. All authors agree to this retraction.


It has been updated as


Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine has retracted the article titled “Effectiveness of Home Care Interventions in Patients with Moderate to Severe Craniocerebral Injury Combined with Epilepsy” [pilepsy”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


Clinical Case Reports, the authors have updated the content in Acknowledgment section as follows: “All authors would like to include their sincere thanks to Dr. Jihad Nassar, an otolaryngology consultant at King Abdulaziz Medical City—National Guard Hospital in Riyadh, for his help in caring for the patient and his suggestions regarding the manuscript writing.”In the article entitled “Hyaluronic acid augmentation pharyngoplasty complicated by retropharyngeal abscess and Grisel syndrome: Case report and literature review”


Computational and Mathematical Methods in Medicine has retracted the article titled “Evaluation of the Effect of Comprehensive Nursing in Psychotherapy of Patients with Depression” [ression”  due to cFollowing an investigation conducted by the Hindawi Research Integrity team , signifi


DistincIn summary, significant species variance was revealed by our study,The authors declare no competing interests.


The animal ethics statement was missing from this paper. The following statement should be included: “The animal use protocol listed in this paper was reviewed and ethical approval for the study was given by the Laboratory Animal Center of Zhejiang University.”


The authors regret that the citations to references 15, 27 and 28 in the sub-section “Variable fluorescence bandpass hyperspectral imaging of Hep G2 cells with correlated scanning electrochemical microscopy” are incorrect. The references should be given as 17, 37 and 42 and should be cited on page 2399.Reference 42 was not included in the original article and is listed below.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.ReferencesElectrochemical Methods for Neuroscience, 2007, 1, 353–372.42. A. Schulte and W. Schuhmann,


In view of the fact that these data had already apparently been published previously, the Editor of Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that the western blotting data shown in Fig. 3B were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles written by different authors at different research institutes that had either already been published elsewhere prior to the submission of this paper to


We thank International Science Editing (Competing interestsThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to


In the published publication , there wDavide Bassani and Stefano Moro * Molecular Modeling Section (MMS), Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, University of Padova, Via Marzolo 5, 35131 Padova, Italy; davide.bassani@roche.com* Correspondence: stefano.moro@unipd.itThe authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Cell Death Discovery 10.1038/s41420-022-00895-9, published online 04 May 2022Retraction to: The authors have retracted this article because the authors noticed a mistake in panel I of Figure 1. The incorrect raw data of the key candidate genes, including PDGFRB and CST3, was used to create the heat map. The authors no longer have confidence in the accuracy of the results presented in this article. None of the authors have responded to any correspondence from the editor about this retraction.


First, the α-tubulin bands featured in Fig. 3B on p. 68 were inadvertently included as the control western blots for the HCT116 cell line in Oncology Letters for granting them this opportunity to publish a corrigendum, and apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.The authors were able to re-examine their original data, and have recognized how these errors occurred. The corrected versions of


Chem. Chem. Phys., 2023, 25, 17596–17608, https://doi.org/10.1039/D3CP00479A.Correction for ‘Limitations of non-polarizable force fields in describing anion binding poses in non-polar synthetic hosts’ by David Seiferth  The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Retraction Note: BMC Cancer 13, 527 (2013)10.1186/1471-2407-13-527The Editor has retracted this article because it appears that some of the text and figures have been previously published by some of the same authors. Specifically:there is substantial text overlap with results section in Figure 2B appears to present the same data as Fig. 1C in [It appears the same FACS plots have been presented in Fig. 3B  and control) as in Fig. 4A in Figure 3C (sifn and Poly(I:C) ) and 3D appear to show the same images as those published previously in  in Fig. Author Yu-Yin Xu does not agree to this retraction. None of the other authors have responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction


In “Efficacy, Benefits, and Harms of a Self-management App in a Swedish Trauma-Exposed Community Sample (PTSD Coach): Randomized Controlled Trial” :e31419) the authors noted one error.In Table 1, the number of participants who screened positive for PTSD in the App Access condition was incorrectly published as "38 (42.7%)." This has been changed to "51 (57.3%)."The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on February 28, 2023, together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


Retraction Note: Naunyn–Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (2023) 396:1931–1942 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00210-023–02449-xThe Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding some of the images in the figures. Specifically:Figure 5c and e appear to overlap with rotation.In Fig. 7a, b, d and e, the images appear to contain repeated patterns.The authors have provided the raw data to address these concerns; however, the same issues were observed in the original images. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.Sousou I. Ali and Nahla N. Younis do not agree to this retraction. Mohamed A. Shaheen, Mohamed Mahrous and Mohamed M. Elseweidy have not explicitly stated whether they agree to this retraction.


There was an error in the original publication . The ethA correction has been made to Section 2.1. Participants, lines 12–14:The ethical standards contained in the Declaration of Helsinki were followed in this study, and this study was approved by the ethics committee of the Polytechnic Institute of Viana do Castelo (IPVC-ESDL180417).The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Technologies to Support Assessment of Movement During Video Consultations: Exploratory Study.”Thank you for taking the time to submit this paper . It is a1. Please consider that movement at least has four basic parameters, including force, range of motion/distance, rate (velocity/acceleration), and endurance (repeats until the mover is fatigued). I think authors could talk more about the shortcomings of their methods for comprehensive assessments of the parametric abilities of movements.2. To further discuss the limitations of your study, please note that in resource-limited environments and developing countries, these results cannot be generalized.3. Please correct the spelling of “CINHAL”.4. Please explain why authors selected a time limit (since 2016) for their literature search.5. The specification of products/instruments should include details .


Retraction Note: Hernia (2023) 27:1195–1202 10.1007/s10029-023-02765-4The authors have retracted this paper because they did not secure ethics approval before conducting post-operative follow-ups with the participants in this study. All authors agree to this retraction.


Nature Medicine 10.1038/s41591-023-02317-4. Published online 24 April 2023.Correction to: In the version of this article initially published, the STRATIFY data also included cohort data from the ESTRA consortium, though this was not acknowledged in the author list and the section in Methods on the Stratify dataset. The Methods are now updated, and the author list is amended to combine the STRATIFY and ESTRA consortium names and to include the following authors: Marina Bobou, M. John Broulidakis, Betteke Maria van Noort, Zuo Zhang, Lauren Robinson, Nilakshi Vaidya, Jeanne Winterer, Yuning Zhang, Sinead King, Hervé Lemaître, Ulrike Schmidt, Julia Sinclair, Argyris Stringaris and Sylvane Desrivières. The STRATIFY and ESTRA consortia are now combined to list Marina Bobou, M. John Broulidakis, Betteke Maria van Noort, Zuo Zhang, Lauren Robinson, Nilakshi Vaidya, Jeanne Winterer, Yuning Zhang, Sinead King, Gareth J. Barker, Arun L. W. Bokde, Hervé Lemaître, Frauke Nees, Dimitri Papadopoulos Orfanos, Ulrike Schmidt, Julia Sinclair, Argyris Stringaris, Henrik Walter, Robert Whelan, Sylvane Desrivières and Gunter Schumann as members, and the IMAGEN consortium is updated to also include Sylvane Desrivières. Affiliations, author contributions and acknowledgements have been updated to reflect the new authorship, and all changes have been made in the HTML and PDF versions of the article.


The revised version of


In view of the fact that these data had already apparently been published previously, the Editor of Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that the western blotting data shown in Fig. 2, 3 and 5, and the Transwell migration assay data in Fig. 4, were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles written by different authors at different research institutes that had either already been published elsewhere prior to the submission of this paper to


Retraction: Parasites & Vectors (2017) 10:303 10.1186/s13071-017-2239-9The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding western blot similarities in Figs. 5B  and 6C . Additional checks by the Publisher have found a number of unexpected breaks in the western blot backgrounds in Figs. 3C–F and 5B.The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.Sujata Kumari agrees to this retraction. Sudha Verma does not agree to this retraction. None of the other authors have responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction.


In “Experiences of Complex Patients With Telemonitoring in a Nurse-Led Model of Care: Multimethod Feasibility Study” :e22118) the authors made one addition.The following text has been added as an Acknowledgment:This research was made possible by the funding support from a Canadian Institutes of Health Research Personalized Health Catalyst Grant (Funding Reference Number 155443).The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on October 24, 2023 together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


This infographic highlights a recently published paper titled “A Holistic Perspective of the Societal Relevance of Beef Production and Its Impacts On Climate Change” . A key c


J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25(12):1306-08.This article has been corrected. Please see Spinal Muscular Atrophy Therapies: ICER Grounds the Price to Value Conversation in Facts.J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2019;25(12):1306-08.Starner CI, Gleason PP. The authors would like to make the following corrections to the above article:Page 1306, right column, the following sentence should be deleted: “According to the ICER report, ‘By May 2018, caregivers reported all 25 (100%) had achieved sitting without support, 22/25 (85%) of children had achieved walking with assistance, and 17/25 (68%) had achieved walking alone’.”Page 1307, left side, end of first paragraph: “27.1 months” should be changed to “24 months.”While the authors regret these errors, they do not affect the conclusions of the article.


Correction to: Acta Neurochirurgicahttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00701-022-05389-2The article "The value of intraoperative indocyanine green angiography in microvascular decompression for hemifacial spasm to avoid brainstem ischemia" written by Ahmed Al Menabbawy et. al, was originally published online October 25, 2022 has an error.At the last sentences of paragraph 2 in the discussion; “Although most of the compressions are caused by arterial conflicting vessels , we had 2 cases of pure venous compressions, and some series reported up to 4.5% of cases with venous compression as the conflicting vessel “.The mistake is that we had only one pure venous compression and not two. The second case with venous compression was actually combined with vertebral artery and was not pure. So, the correct statement should be; “Although most of the compressions are caused by arterial conflicting vessels , we had only one case of pure venous compression and another case with venous compression combined with vertebral artery compression, and some series reported up to 4.5% of cases with venous compression as the conflicting vessel.”The original version of this article is corrected.


This study compared the efficacy of three commercial oral rehydration solutions (ORS) for restoring fluid and electrolyte balance, after exercise-induced dehydration.N = 20; ♀ = 3; age ∼27 y, 2peak ∼52 ml/kg/min) completed three randomised, counterbalanced trials whereby intermittent exercise in the heat  induced ∼2.5% dehydration. Subsequently, participants rehydrated  with a glucose-based (G-ORS), sugar-free (Z-ORS) or amino acid-based sugar-free (AA-ORS) ORS of varying electrolyte composition. Urine output was measured hourly and capillary blood samples collected pre-exercise, 0, 2 and 5 h post-exercise. Sodium, potassium, and chloride concentrations in urine, sweat, and blood were determined.Healthy, active participants (P ≤ 0.010). Only AA-ORS achieved positive sodium and chloride balance post-exercise, which were greater for AA-ORS than G-ORS and Z-ORS (P ≤ 0.006), as well as for G-ORS than Z-ORS (P ≤ 0.007) from 1 to 5 h.Net fluid balance peaked at 4 h and was greater in AA-ORS (141 ± 155 ml) and G-ORS (101 ± 195 ml) than Z-ORS (−47 ± 208 ml; when provided in a volume equivalent to 125% of exercise-induced fluid loss, AA-ORS produced comparable/superior fluid balance and superior sodium/chloride balance responses to popular glucose-based and sugar-free ORS. Typically, fluid intake during exercise does not keep pace with fluid lost through sweating , 2, meanFor complete and rapid rehydration between exercise bouts the most important nutritional factor is beverage volume, with research demonstrating the volume ingested must be more than that lost to account for ongoing fluid losses in the post-exercise period , 11. SecFurthermore, manipulating the carbohydrate and protein/amino acid composition of a beverage might enhance post-exercise rehydration . PreviouExercise-induced dehydration without fluid replacement produces hypertonic hypovolaemia or intracellular dehydration . This ocIt is well established that glucose can facilitate water and sodium absorption across the intestine through the cotransporter protein SLC5A1 . A varieInterestingly, recommended ORS sodium content (∼75 mmol/L) is consistent with beverages shown to optimise post-exercise rehydration , 13. As Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to compare the post-exercise rehydration efficacy of a novel amino acid-based ORS developed using HydroActive Technology™  (AA-ORS) with two established ORS formulations; Pedialyte Classic®  and Pedialyte Zero® . On the basis of superior beverage hydration index outcomes when comparing AA-ORS to G-ORS and other sugar-based commercial beverages in well-hydrated people , we hypo2.2.1.All experimental procedures were approved by the Loughborough University Ethics Approvals Human Participants Sub-Committee (LEON 6013). Participants were fully informed of the risks and discomforts associated with all experimental trials before completing a health screen questionnaire and providing written, informed consent.2.2.N = 17 male, N = 3 female, age 27 ± 5 y, height 1.76 ± 0.09 m, body mass 74.6 ± 11.7 kg, 2peak 52 ± 15 ml/kg/min, body fat 13.9 ± 3.7%) participated in this study. Participants did not have a history of renal, haematological, or musculoskeletal abnormalities. All participants were living in the U.K. during the months of the study and confirmed that they had not completed exercise training in hot conditions.Twenty healthy, non-heat acclimated, recreationally active individuals .2.4.2peak) and peak power output (Wpeak) were determined using an incremental step test to exhaustion. Exercise began at a freely chosen pedal cadence at a workload of 95 W and increased by 35 W every 3 min until volitional exhaustion, despite strong verbal encouragement. Expired gases were collected into a Douglas bag for the final 45–60 s to determine 2peak. Expired gas was analysed for O2 and CO2 content , volume  and temperature .During the preliminary visit, body mass , height, and body fat  were ob2.5.Participants arrived at the laboratory in the morning (time standardised within participant to limit the effects of circadian variation). Participants consumed a standardised breakfast 1.5 h before arrival, consisting of cereal bars totalling 1 g/kg body mass carbohydrate and orange juice mixed with water to provide 0.5 g/kg body mass carbohydrate in a total of 500 ml fluid. The food and fluid were provided to ensure adequate energy availability and pre-trial hydration in anticipation of the exercise protocol. In the 24 h prior to the first experimental trial, participants completed a weighed diet record (food and fluid) using food scales accurate to 1 g and consumed a minimum fluid intake of 40 ml/kg body mass, replicating this food and fluid intake in the 24 h before subsequent trials. Additionally, participants refrained from strenuous physical activity in the 48 h before trials and refrained from alcohol intake in the 24 h before trials. For the measurement of body core temperature during trials, participants ingested a radio-telemetry pill  ∼10–12 h before arrival . Adherence to all pre-trial requirements was verbally confirmed before each trial.2.6.On arrival at the laboratory, and after 10 min seated rest, a small incision was made in a fingertip using a lancet and a 150 uL capillary blood sample was collected into a heparinised capillary tube . Sweat patches  were affixed to the right forearm and right scapula , 43, aft2.7.Participants were dehydrated by intermittent cycling at ∼50% Wpeak in an environmental chamber maintained at 36.3 ± 0.2°C and 52.5 ± 1.0%, until 2.2% of their pre-trial body mass was lost. The total body mass loss target was 2.5% and it was estimated participants would lose the additional 0.3% in the 30 min post-exercise cool down. Participants cycled for 10 min, followed by 5 min rest in the chamber, during which they towel dried and nude body mass was measured. Rate of body mass loss was used to adjust the duration of the final stage to ensure participant body mass loss was as close to 2.2% as possible. In the final min of each exercise stage, rating of perceived exertion [RPE ], thirst2.8.The rehydration phase lasted 5 h and participants consumed 125% of the total body mass losses during dehydration in four even aliquots at hourly intervals . Participants were required to consume the entire volume of each aliquot within 10 min. Participants rested quietly seated in the laboratory for this 5 h, except for urine collection and nude body mass measurements. In the final 5 min of each hour, ambient temperature and relative humidity, as well as GI comfort and thirst were recorded, before participants voided their bladder and had nude body mass measured on the hour. Following the consumption of the second drink (1 h 10 min), participants were provided with a lunch of cereal bars (1.5 kg/body mass of carbohydrate), which they consumed within 10 min. This food was provided due to the extended duration of the protocol and for greater ecological validity, as it is unlikely athletes would restrict food in the 5 h post-exercise in real-world scenarios. Additional fingertip capillary blood samples were collected after 10 min seated rest at 2 h and 5 h of the rehydration phase.2.9.The composition of the ORS beverages used are presented in 2.10.A blood gas analyser  was used for the immediate determination of blood sodium, potassium, and chloride concentration in capillary blood samples. For all urine samples, mass to the nearest 0.1 g, with 1 g assumed to equal 1 ml  and specific gravity to the nearest 0.001  were immediately determined and an aliquot was frozen at −80°C for later analysis. ORS, urine and sweat samples were analysed for sodium and potassium concentrations by flame photometry  and chloride concentration by coulometric titration . For beverage electrolyte concentrations, a sample of eight different beverages for each of the three beverages were measured, with the mean values for each used in calculations of electrolyte balance. Sweat sodium and potassium , as well2.11.N = 100 - (100 x [CumUON / (CumDVN + CumFWN)]Fluid retention at time point N = - + CumDVN + CumFWN - CumUONNFB at time point N = -SE + CumDEN − CumUENElectrolyte balance at time point 4h] / 240}Time to full fluid balance recovery =  / {[ - NFBKey: CumUO is cumulative urine output (mL); CumDV is cumulative drink volume (mL); CumFW (mL) is cumulative food water; NFB is the net fluid balance (mL); SL is the total sweat loss (L) calculated from body mass loss from pre-exercise to 0 h; BM is body mass (kg); SE is sweat electrolyte loss (mmol); CumDE is cumulative drink electrolyte concentration (mmol); CumUE is cumulative urine electrolyte concentration (mmol). Superscript denotes the timepoint of measure.2.12.t-tests or Wilcoxon Signed-Rank tests, as appropriate. The familywise error rate was controlled using the Holm-Bonferroni correction. Cochran's Q test was utilized to compare differences in hydration recovery between beverages (each participant treated as randomized block). Pairwise comparisons were then made using a permutation test with a False Disovery Rate correction applied to the P-values  based on a medium effect for net fluid balance across the three trials (ηp2 = 0.07), an α of 0.05 and a β of 0.2 and a correlation between repeated measures of 0.66, determined from previous studies from our research group examining the effect of amino acid containing beverage to amino-acid-free beverages . All data were initially checked for normality of distribution prior to analysis using two-factor or one-factor repeated-measures ANOVA. Where the assumption of sphericity was violated, the Greenhouse-Geisser correction was used. Where significant interaction (two-way ANOVA) or main (one-way ANOVA) effects were observed, differences between trials were explored using post-hoc paired P-values , 48. Alleverages , 25–27. , IBM. Al3.3.1.P = 0.378 and P = 0.432, respectively) or rest .There were no differences in room temperature or relative humidity  between 3.2.P = 0.214), mean thermal sensation (P = 0.275), mean thirst (P = 0.656), mean core body temperature (P = 0.106) or the total exercise duration required to produce the 2.2% decrease in body mass (P = 0.483). Total body mass loss in kg (P = 0.402), % body mass loss (P = 0.399) and urine output during the dehydration phase (P = 0.582) were also not different between trials. Therefore, the volume of beverage consumed during trials was not different in total  or for each aliquot . The meal participants consumed at 1 h 10 min was identical and contained a small amount of water amounting to 22 ± 5 ml . Finally, there were no significant differences between trials for total sweat losses of sodium (P = 0.360), potassium (P = 0.776) or chloride (P = 0.140) during exercise.Relevant variables for the dehydration phase of the study are presented in 3.3.P = 0.214; P = 0.580; P < 0.001), increasing following the dehydration phase before decreasing over the rehydration phase.There were no interaction effects for thirst (3.4.P < 0.001) for urine output, with less urine output in AA-ORS and G-ORS compared with Z-ORS at 4 h  and 5 h . There was a time x trial interaction effect for urine specific gravity (P < 0.001), which increased following dehydration in all trials and remained elevated until 3 h in G-ORS (P ≤ 0.024) and AA-ORS (P ≤ 0.018), and until 2 h in Z-ORS (P ≤ 0.018). Additionally, urine specific gravity was lower than baseline at 4 h and 5 h in Z-ORS . There was a time x trial interaction effect (P < 0.001) for fluid retention  and 5 h . There were interaction effects for cumulative sodium (P < 0.001), potassium (P = 0.002) and chloride (P < 0.001) losses in urine (P ≤ 0.014) and in AA-ORS compared to G-ORS from 3 to 5 h (P ≤ 0.006), with no differences between G-ORS and Z-ORS (P ≥ 0.064). Cumulative potassium losses were greater in G-ORS compared to Z-ORS at 1 h, 2 h, 4 h and 5 h (P ≤ 0.039) and greater in AA-ORS compared to Z-ORS from 3 to 5 h (P ≤ 0.030).There was a time x trial interaction effect . Net fluid balance was negative until 3 h in all trials (P < 0.001), whereas at 4 h it was not different from baseline in G-ORS and Z-ORS (P ≥ 0.230), but greater than baseline in AA-ORS (P = 0.004). At 5 h, net fluid balance was not different from baseline in AA-ORS and G-ORS (P ≥ 0.999), but lower than baseline in Z-ORS (P < 0.001). Net fluid balance was greater in both AA-ORS and G-ORS compared to Z-ORS from 4 to 5 h (P ≤ 0.015).For net fluid balance , with faster restoration in AA-ORS (P < 0.001) and G-ORS (P < 0.001) compared with Z-ORS. There was no difference in the calculated time for restoration between AA-ORS and G-ORS (P = 0.370). For the number of participants reaching full recovery of fluid balance , Cochran's Q test revealed a significant effect of beverage , or G-ORS . There was no difference between G-ORS and Z-ORS .The calculated time at which participants reached full recovery of net fluid balance  differed3.6.(P < 0.001) effects for sodium, potassium, and chloride balance (P < 0.001), which was not different between trials for sodium (P ≥ 0.579), potassium (P > 0.999) and chloride (P ≥ 0.290). Post-exercise, sodium balance ((P ≤ 0.001), except in AA-ORS at 2–3 h (P ≥ 0.067) and in G-ORS at 4–5 h (P ≥ 0.082), where it was not different from baseline, and at 4–5 h in AA-ORS (P ≤ 0.004), where it was greater than baseline. Sodium balance was greater in AA-ORS compared to both G-ORS and Z-ORS, and in G-ORS compared to Z-ORS from 1 to 5 h (P ≤ 0.031). Post-exercise, potassium balance ((P ≤ 0.017), except at 2–5 h in AA-ORS (P ≥ 0.097) and 2–4 h in G-ORS (P ≥ 0.071), where there were no differences compared to baseline. Potassium balance was greater in AA-ORS compared to Z-ORS from 1 to 5 h (P ≤ 0.012). Post-exercise, chloride balance ((P ≤ 0.020), except at 3–5 h in AA-ORS (P ≥ 0.305), where there were no differences from baseline. Chloride balance was greater in AA-ORS compared to both G-ORS and Z-ORS, and in G-ORS compared to Z-ORS from 1 to 5 h (P ≤ 0.012).There were time x trial interaction  balance . The exe balance  was redu balance  was redu balance  was redu3.7.(P ≤ 0.019) for blood sodium, potassium, and chloride concentrations ((P ≤ 0.001) compared with baseline but had returned to baseline at 2 and 5 h (P ≥ 0.232) in all trials ((P = 0.003). There were no differences between trials at any time point for blood potassium concentration (P ≥ 0.136), and compared with baseline, there were no differences in any post-exercise blood potassium concentrations (P ≥ 0.256), except an increase at 2 h in AA-ORS  and remained elevated at 2 and 5 h (P ≤ 0.007), with no differences to baseline at any time point in G-ORS or Z-ORS  and compared to G-ORS and Z-ORS at 5 h (P ≤ 0.021).There were time x trial interaction effects trations . Post-exl trials . Blood s4.The present study demonstrates that following exercise-induced dehydration of ∼2.6% body mass, all fluid balance markers , were enhanced with AA-ORS and G-ORS compared to Z-ORS, without any significant differences between AA-ORS and G-ORS. Furthermore, sodium and chloride balance were significantly greater in AA-ORS compared to both G-ORS and Z-ORS, as well as in G-ORS compared to Z-ORS from 1 h post-exercise until the end of the study . Potassium balance was significantly greater in AA-ORS and G-ORS compared to Z-ORS from 1 to 5 h post-exercise, with no difference between AA-ORS and G-ORS. These results are in line with our hypotheses, apart from that fluid balance measures were not different between AA-ORS and G-ORS. These findings suggest that an amino acid-based ORS is a viable alternative to a glucose-based ORS to support post-exercise rehydration, and in terms of sodium and chloride balance, provides superior recovery of electrolyte balance post-exercise.(P < 0.001) in AA-ORS (485 ± 175 ml) and G-ORS (542 ± 213 ml) compared to Z-ORS (779 ± 223 ml), with no difference between AA-ORS and G-ORS (P < 0.304). Ultimately, these effects on urine output meant that similar effects were apparent for fluid retention and net fluid balance over the rehydration phase. These fluid balance data are mainly consistent with the results of previous studies that have manipulated the sodium and/or chloride composition of post-exercise rehydration beverages  during the exercise-induced dehydration phase, and, consequently, the volume of drink consumed in the rehydration phase was also not different between trials. Therefore, differences between trials for post-exercise fluid balance variables were caused by differences in physiological responses to the ingested beverages. Total urine output over the 5 h rehydration phase was reduced everages –13.In general, previous studies demonstrate that recovery of fluid balance after exercise-induced dehydration is directly related to the sodium content of the ingested beverage, but it seems that ≥40 mmol/L sodium is generally required to observe significant differences compared to lower sodium concentration beverages –14. WhenP ≤ 0.05), with 19 (out of 20) returning to net fluid balance in AA-ORS compared with 11 and 14 in Z-ORS and G-ORS, respectively. This suggests that the AA-ORS beverage might provide a more consistent response across different participants. However, it is important to note that on average the difference between AA-ORS and G-ORS amounted to ∼40 ml at 4 h and ∼67 ml at 5 h and was not significantly different between trials (P > 0.999).Data comparing beverages with sodium concentration >50 mmol/L are scarce in the literature and have observed inconsistent findings. Two studies have compared post-exercise beverages with sodium concentrations of ∼100 mmol/ and ∼50 mmol/L , 13, witThe findings for sodium and chloride balance are consistent with previous rehydration experiments that have manipulated sodium and/or chloride concentrations of rehydration beverages –14. ThesIt is interesting that sodium and chloride balance were greater after the AA-ORS beverage compared to the G-ORS beverage, but that these increases did not elicit alterations in urine output or other fluid balance measures. Similar findings have been reported previously . There aPotassium balance was greater throughout the rehydration phase in AA-ORS and G-ORS compared to Z-ORS, but the beverage concentrations of potassium were a lot closer than for sodium and chloride. Interestingly, and in contrast to sodium and chloride, the small increase in potassium concentration from that of Z-ORS beverage (∼12 mmol/L) to AA-ORS and G-ORS beverages , did produce significant increases in potassium excretion in urine over the rehydration phase. The exercise-induced dehydration produced only small losses of potassium in sweat , consistent with previous studies , 43. In The finding that AA-ORS was comparable to G-ORS for fluid balance measures and superior for sodium and chloride balance may be of use to athletes looking to recover from dehydration without ingesting glucose or sugars. Whilst it is well established that glucose can facilitate water and sodium absorption across the small intestine through the cotransporter protein SLC5A1 , the incIn conclusion, the present study demonstrates that following exercise-induced dehydration, and when consumed in a volume equivalent to 125% of the exercise fluid loss, an amino acid-based ORS (AA-ORS) restores net fluid balance similarly compared with a glucose-based ORS (G-ORS), and superiorly, compared to a sugar-free ORS formulation (Z-ORS), potentially offering a solution to optimise post-exercise rehydration in numerous settings. Furthermore, AA-ORS produced significant increases in recovery of sodium and chloride balance compared to current glucose-based (G-ORS) and sugar-free (Z-ORS) commercial ORS. This may help facilitate longer-term recovery and/or provide the rationale for enhanced recovery in situations where electrolyte losses are proportionally greater . Future studies should seek to examine the efficacy of different ORS formulations in such situations.


Retraction Note: Sports Medicine (2022) 52:2627–2635 10.1007/s40279-022-01710-2The authors have retracted this article because, after publication, concerns were raised about the appropriateness of the studies included in the meta-analysis. Re-analysis by the authors found that seven of the 11 studies included in the meta-analysis did not fully meet the criteria for inclusion or exclusion. Both authors agree with this retraction.


ISME Communications 10.1038/s43705-022-00201-9, published online 16 December 2022Corrigendum to: Vulcanimicrobium alpinus (sic) gen. nov. sp. nov. along with higher-rank taxonomic names: the family , order , class (Eremiobacteriia), and phylum (Eremiobacterota). Vulcanimicrobium alpinum corrig. Yabe et al. 2023 was subsequently validated with a correction to the species name by Oren and Göker [International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes [Vulcanimicrobiaceae fam. nov., Vulcanimicrobiales ord. nov., Vulcanimicrobiia class. nov., and Vulcanimicrobiota phyl. nov. with following taxonomic descriptions.In the original version of the paper page 12-13), the authors described the bacterial name 2-13, theActinomycetota, which includes known photosynthetic lineages. However, the correct classification should have been Acidobacteriota.Furthermore, in the Introduction of the original paper , the authors inadvertently included The authors apologize for any confusion caused.Description ofVulcanimicrobiaceaefam. nov.Vulcanimicrobium, a bacterial genus; -aceae, ending to denote a family; N.L. fem. pl. n. Vulcanimicrobiaceae, the Vulcanimicrobium family)....(Vul.ca.ni.mi.cro.bi.o’ta. N.L. neut. n. Candidatus Eremiobacteraeota", "Candidatus Eremiobacterota" [Not validly published synonyms: "cterota" , 5–7.Vulcanimicrobium. Type genus is Vulcanimicrobium.The description is the same as for the genus


As of 15 May 2023, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a total of 765,903,278 cases and 6,927,378 cumulative deaths worldwide  . It is fJS, HL, FC, and SC designed and wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.


Page 1: The corresponding authors should be as given in this Erratum.Volume 11, no. 3, e05202-22, 2023,


The following scientists assisted the journal by reviewing manuscripts during the period November 1, 2022 to October 31, 2023.We gratefully acknowledge their critical evaluation and valuable assistance in selecting articles for publication.


Mediators of Inflammation would like to express concern with the article titled “IκB Kinase Inhibitor VII Modulates Sepsis-Induced Excessive Inflammation and Cardiac Dysfunction in 5/6 Nephrectomized Mice” [ed Mice”  due to cThe authors apologized but did not provide a response to our request for further clarification and did not provide the original blots. As the journal has not received evidence that the findings are fundamentally flawed, it remains published, however, the conclusions should be viewed with caution.


Sci.: Atmos., 2023, 3, 399–407, https://doi.org/10.1039/D2EA00133K.Correction for ‘Ring-opening yields and auto-oxidation rates of the resulting peroxy radicals from OH-oxidation of α-pinene and β-pinene’ by Ben H. Lee  The authors regret that a grant was missing in the acknowledgements section of the published article. The corrected acknowledgements section is shown below:Acknowledgementsx generation, and Henrik G. Kjærgaard (University of Copenhagen) and Kristian H. Møller (University of Copenhagen) for their suggestions on theoretical calculations.This work was funded by National Science Foundation Environmental Chemical Sciences (grant no. CHE-1807204 and CHE-2003359) and the European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under Grant No. 101002728. The authors acknowledge Ezra Wood (Drexel University) for his instructions on HOThe Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Also, for compounds 11–13 in In the original publication , there w


In the original publication of the article, the Authors' Contributions statement were incorrectly published with X, Y, Z instead of the authors' names. This has been corrected with this erratum.Authors’ contributions: All authors contributed to the manuscript conception and design. Material preparation, data collection were performed by Michelle Benstead, Elizabeth Clancy and Jess Heerde. The primary analysis was undertaken by Bosco Rowland and supported by Mohammadreza Mohebbi. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Bosco Rowland and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. John Toumbourou and Jennifer Bailey were involved with securing the funds for data collection of the IYDS component of the study. Bosco Rowland, Robyn Horner and Paul Sharkey were involved with securing funding from the Melbourne Archdiocese of Catholic Schools (MACS).The original article has been corrected.


Open Biol.6, 150258 (Published online 1 March 2016). (https://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsob.150258)f ‘hBM-MSCs were transfected with either miR-NC or miR-150-3p inhibitor (anti-miR), and treated with either PBS (−) or TNF-α (+), followed by Western blot analysis to examined β-catenin protein levels’ has overlap with fig.6b [e ‘Levels of phosphorylated NF-κB at Ser536 (p-NF-κB) in hBM-MSCs treated with either PBS (as control) or TNF-α’ overlap with fig. 2b [Following an investigation, we have found that the published manuscript has substantial overlap with published manuscripts ,2 in theThe authors have not been able to supply the raw data as requested, thus, the editors consider the conclusions of this article to be invalid. The authors have not responded to correspondence about this retraction.Jonathon Pines FRSOpen Biology.Editor-in-Chief,


Author Contributions: Y.L. and H.L. performed the study and wrote the manuscript. L.C. contributed to data analysis. Z.C. and W.L. performed the technical modification and conceived the study.Yinghua Li was not included as an author in the original publication . With thFor authors Zihao Chen and Weizhong Li, the correct order as follows: Zihao Chen and Weizhong Li.liwz@smu.edu.cn.The authors want to add Weizhong Li as corresponding author, and change Weizhong Li’s email address to 1 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China2 Department of Urology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China3 School of Clinical Medicine, Baotou Medical College, Baotou 014040, ChinaIn the published publication, there were errors regarding the affiliations 1–3. The updated affiliations should be:The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The journal retracts the paper entitled “Strengthening public health surveillance through blockchain technology” This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal AIMS Public Health.The authors agreed to this retraction.


The Oncologist, Volume 26, Issue 10, October 2021, Pages e1862–e1869, https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13879This is a correction notice for: Anna Ozaki, Takaomi Kessoku, Yuki Kasai, Yuma Takeda, Naoki Okubo, Michihiro Iwaki, Takashi Kobayashi, Tsutomu Yoshihara, Yasushi Honda, Akiko Fuyuki, Takuma Higurashi, Hiroto Ishiki, Masataka Taguri, Shunsuke Oyamada, Noritoshi Kobayashi, Atsushi Nakajima, Yasushi Ichikawa, Elobixibat Effectively Relieves Chronic Constipation in Patients with Cancer Regardless of the Amount of Food Intake, In the originally published version of this article, the Disclosures section was incorrect and should have read as follows:This study was conducted without company funding; however, three co-authors have financial relationships to disclose. Takaomi Kessoku received lecture honoraria and research funding from EA Pharma Co. Ltd. and Mochida Pharmaceutical Co., Hiroto Ishiki received lecture honoraria from EA Pharma Co. Ltd., and Atsushi Nakajima received scholarship fee, lecture honoraria, and research funding from EA Pharma Co. Ltd. and Mochida Pharmaceutical Co.These details have been amended only in this correction notice to preserve the published version of record.


In the original publication , the funFunding: This work was sponsored by financial support from the Major Projects of Science and Technology of Anhui Province (202103a06020003), Anhui Province’s key research and development program (202004b11020014), China National Key Research and Development Program (2019YFA0904300 and 2019YFA0904304), Key Research and Development Plan of Anhui Province (1804b06020342), Natural Science Foundation of Anhui Province (1908085MB48 and 1908085MB43), and National Natural Science Foundation of China (32070088).There was an error in the original publication. The wrong reagent information for antibody Bcl-2 was included. Corrections have been made to the 8th and 9th sentences of Section 2.8:PINK1, MFN1, MFN2, Nrf2, Bax, TFAM , Bcl-2  and β-actin .There was an error in the original publication. Due to carelessness, there was a word used incorrectly in the sentence. Corrections have been made to the 5th and 6th sentences of Section 3.7.The results showed that 6-OHDA slightly increased the expression of PINK1 and Parkin proteins, compared to that in the control group.In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 2 as published. Since the information of the previously used antibody Bcl-2 was wrong, we purchased a new Bcl-2 antibody and re-performed the relevant experiments, to make replacements for Figure 2D. The corrected version of Figure 2 appears below. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Retraction Note: Stem Cell Research & Therapy (2020) 11:2https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-019-1492-6The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article after concerns were raised about potential image re-use between Fig. 4D and 5D and the potential partial overlap between Fig. 6A and Supplementary Fig. 4A. The authors were unable to provide raw data for Figs. 4 and 5. The raw images provided for Fig. 6A and Supplementary Fig. 4A contained further partial image overlaps between different experimental conditions. The authors were also unable to share evidence of ethics approval. Therefore, the Editors have lost confidence in the data presented here.Yuanlin Song agrees to this retraction. Yun Feng and Xiaotong Yang do not agree to this retraction. Linlin Wang, Xiaoying Ma, Ocholi Don, Xiaoyan Chen and Jieming Qu have not responded to any correspondence from the editor/publisher about this retraction.


Retraction Note: Cell & Bioscience (2020) 10:410.1186/s13578-019-0371-2The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article after the investigation by the publisher found that potential image overlap in Figs. 2f, 4e, 5f, 6e and 7a. The authors failed to provide raw images and an ethical approval document.In addition, the corresponding author stated that he was not aware of the publication of this article and his email address provided on submission was not his email address. None of the authors responded to any correspondence from the editor/publisher about this retraction.


Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-021-23242-5 published online 20 May 2021Retraction to: The authors have retracted this article. In this article, we reported that chicken embryo fibroblasts (CEFs) could be transdifferentiated to primordial germ cells (PGCs) and used to generate viable offspring after transplantation to chicken embryos. After publication, it was brought to our attention  that some of the analyses to support our conclusions regarding the origin of offspring were insufficient. Specifically, self-crossing, microsatellite and feather color data were thought to be inconclusive evidence that the offspring were donor derived. No concerns were raised regarding data integrity. However, additional review by two external experts concurred with the concerns raised, and we acknowledge that alterations to the experimental design would have allowed the origin of offspring to be determined with less ambiguity. The authors are performing further experiments and intend to submit a new manuscript for peer review in due course. All authors agree to this retraction.


In the original publication , there wThe authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Molecular and Cellular Biochemistry (2020) 476:1-1010.1007/s11010-020-03814-7The authors have retracted this article because, after publication, it was brought to their attention that some images overlap with those in other articles. In particular:Figure 7B (panel 400X vs. Ad-shNC) overlaps with Fig. 7D (panel Ki67 vs. Ad-shNC) of Figure 7B (panel 100X vs. Ad-snNC) overlap with Fig. 2F MCF-7 (panel 100X vs. NC) of [The authors have stated that the immunohistochemistry experiments were performed by a third party; this was not reported in the article. All authors agree to this retraction.


This corrects the article “Social media for research discourse, dissemination, and collaboration in rheumatology” in volume 3 on page 172.In the December 2022 issue of Rheumatology and Immunology Research, the paper titled “Social media for research discourse, dissemination, and collaboration in rheumatology” :169-179. doi: 10.2478/rir-2022-0031), was published with some errors:The sentence “Among 26 rheumatology journal families, 21 (81%) have active Twitter accounts.” should be changed to “Among 28 rheumatology journal families, 24 (86%) have Twitter accounts.” The sentence, “However, only 5 (19%) have a designated social media editor,” should be changed to “However, only 10 (36%) have a designated social media editor.”In The errors do not change the scientific conclusions of the article. The authors would like to apologize for the errors and any inconvenience caused.


Figures 4A and 7A. The authors failed to provide a satisfactory explanation and the complete raw data during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies. As a result, the data and conclusions of the article have been deemed unreliable and the article has been retracted.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the images in the published figures. Image duplication concerns were identified within This retraction was approved by the Chief Editor of Frontiers in Cellular Neuroscience and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors did not state whether they agree or disagree with this retraction.


Dutcher bodies varied in size, number, and location in the nucleus  translocation is a poor prognostic factor for both overall survival and progression‐free survival; therefore, the t translocation needs to be considered when Dutcher bodies are detected in myeloma patients.Dutcher bodies are closely associated with the translocation t, causing the Masahiro Manabe, Nobuhiro Sogabe, Satoru Nannno, and Ki‐Ryang Koh designed the study. Masahiro Manabe, Yuuji Hagiwara, and Reiko Asada analyzed the data. Masahiro Manabe and Ki‐Ryang Koh collected the clinical data and specimens. Masahiro Manabe, Yuuji Hagiwara, and Reiko Asada wrote the manuscript. All of the authors have reviewed and approved the final manuscript.The authors have no competing interests to declare.There are no funding sources to declare.The patient provided her consent for the publication of this case report.


The authors wish to make the following corrections to their paper . Eight s


The authors regret that the published version of this article contained errors in the methods section of the abstract and in In the methods section of the abstract, the non-inferiority margin was written as 5%. This was a typographical error. We have provided the correct version, which is 1.5%, as stated in the main body of the paper and the supplementary appendix. The sentence now reads: “The study team determined that the safety of the combined MDA would be non-inferior to that of separate MDAs if the upper limit of the two-sided CI for the difference in rates was equal to or lower than 1.5%”.In These corrections do not change the interpretation or conclusions of the paper. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


The Moffitt Cancer Center investigated this article  and deteFig 1a, AKT panelFig 2a, IB: α-HA IgG panelFig 3b, MST2 panelFig 4c, MST2 panel and Cleaved-MST2 panelFollowing their findings of misconduct the Moffitt Cancer Centre recommended retraction of .The PLOS Editors also noted that the Fig 1a and Fig 1c MST2 Cleaved-MST2 panels appear to partially overlap when one of the panels is flipped horizontally. PLOS did not follow up on this additional concern.The authors did not respond to editorial communications regarding the above concerns and did not provide any underlying data.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the outcome of the institutional investigation and the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the integrity of these data, the DK and ZY agreed with the retraction. SS, MDC, SK, and JQC either did not respond directly or could not be reached. ZY stands by the article’s findings.


The authors regret that the Acknowledgments section was omitted from the original article. Acknowledgments are as shown below.M.-F. L. was supported by the Hierarchical Green-Energy Materials (Hi-GEM) Research Center, from the Featured Areas Research Center Program within the framework of the Higher Education Sprout Project by the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST 111-2112-M-006-020) in Taiwan.T.-R. C. was supported by the 2030 Cross-Generation Young Scholars Program from the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) in Taiwan (Program No. MOST111-2628-M-006-003-MY3), National Cheng Kung University (NCKU), Taiwan, and National Center for Theoretical Sciences, Taiwan. This research was supported, in part, by the Higher Education Sprout Project, Ministry of Education to the Headquarters of University Advancement at NCKU.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Ann Transl Med 8: 1157, 2020].Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the Transwell cell invasion assay data shown in Fig. 2E on p. 8 were strikingly similar to data that had appeared in different form in a different article by different authors at different research institutes that had already been accepted for publication [Yan C, Gao L, Qiu X and Deng C: Schisandrin B synergizes docetaxel-induced restriction of growth and invasion of cervical cancer cells Oncology Letters, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that some of the data in the above article were already under consideration for publication prior to its submission to


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office never received a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere prior to its submission to


In the original publication , there wTable 1. Demographic and postoperative outcomes of the patients included in the study. Age and ligations per procedure are expressed as a mean with the range between parentheses. Follow-up is expressed as a median.In the original publication , there wThe authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Correction to: Pediatric Cardiology (2022) 44:312–324 10.1007/s00246-022-03074-wIn the original publication of the article, only family names were mentioned.The authors’ full names are:Raphael Joye, Maurice Beghetti, Julie Wacker, Iliona Malaspinas, Maya Bouhabib, Angelo Polito, Alice Bordessoule & Dipen C. Shah.This has been corrected in this paper.


The authors regret that there was an error in the labelling of the axes shown in the graphs in Figs. 1b and 1c. In both cases, the x-axis label should read E9.5 KO / E9.5 WT (Log2) and not E9.5 WT / E9.5 KO WT (Log2) as originally stated.i.m.dykes@ljmu.ac.uk.The email address for the corresponding author has been changed to The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


Bursaphelenchus zvyagintsevi sp. n. The corrected main text appears below in Section 2.1:In the original publication , there wBursaphelenchus zvyagintsevi sp. n.Adults : http://zoobank.org/urn:lsid:zoobank.org:act:71BDE14D-B778-40FE-977D-D910F701DE6D (accessed on 13 August 2023). Body curved ventrally. Stylet base slightly expanded, but without distinct knobs. Cephalic annuli faintly distinct through light microscopy. Median bulb ellipsoid, large; valve median to sub-median of bulb. Excretory pore located at nerve ring or at posterior end of the median bulb. Lateral field with two incisures.The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of the above paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that certain of the western blotting data shown in Fig. 5 were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors, some of which have been retracted. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published, elsewhere when it was submitted to


All the authors agree to the publication of this corrigendum, and also apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.The authors were able to re-examine their original data files, and realized that these figures had been inadvertently assembled incorrectly . The revised versions of


Smartphone interventions effect in pediatric subjects on the day of surgery: a meta-analysis Li L, Ma J, Ma D and Zhou X. (2021) Front. Surg. 8:759958. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2021.759958A Retraction of the Systematic Review Article The journal and Chief Editors retract the 16 December 2021 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding abnormal similarities with the contents of other articles published by unrelated research groups. A subsequent investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies, raised strong concerns over the authorship of the articles, resulting in a loss of confidence in the findings presented in the article.The authors have not responded to this retraction.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Surgery and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.


The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.In the original publication , there w


Retraction Note: J Exp Clin Cancer Res40, 92 (2021)10.1186/s13046-021-01889-8The Editor in Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised about the following issues:• OSRC2-ZNF582-AS1 CON panel in Fig. 4c appears to partially overlap with the OSRC2-MT-RNR1 OE panel in Fig. 9g;• The highlighted sequences in Fig. 6g do not appear to correspond to the positions of the peaks as reported in Fig. 6a;• There appears to be substantial overlap between this paper and two previously-published papers  and 2]  2] that • The reference number of the ethics permit as reported in the article appears to have been used in multiple other studies dealing with topics and studies that appear to require separate approvals.The authors provided an explanation which did not address the concerns adequately. The Editor in Chief, therefore, has lost confidence in the integrity of the article’s findings. The corresponding author has stated on behalf of all authors that they disagree to this retraction.


In checking the blots and records from that time, the authors found that the loading controls for both experiments had been imaged at the same time and on the same film, leading to the inadvertent selection of the wrong image for Fig. 2 A.The corrected The error appears in print and in PDFs downloaded on or before September 8, 2023. The authors apologize for the error and any confusion.


Cell Death & Disease 10.1038/s41419-020-2250-5, published online 22 January 2020Retraction to: Two images in Fig. 4h appear highly similar to those in Fig. 1f of [The images in Fig. 7b appear highly similar to those in Fig. 8a of  with difThe images in Fig. 8a appear highly similar to those in Figs. 4j and 5h of .The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding image similarities between this article and previous papers from different author groups, specifically:Fig. 4d SKBR-3-TR CQ+ GAPDH appears highly similar to Fig. 5d SKBR-3-TR Control GAPDH.Fig. 4d BT474-TR CQ- and CQ+ GAPDH appear highly similar to Fig. 5d BT474-TR Control and miR-567 GAPDH, respectively.Some of the blots in Figs. 7d and 8c appear to have irregularities in the backgrounds.The GSE104076 microarray dataset information [Further checks by the Publisher identified a number of further concerns:The Editors-in-Chief therefore no longer have confidence in the presented data and the conclusions of the article.None of the authors have responded to any correspondence from the editor or publisher about this retraction.


In the article by Kwiatkowska et al.The first sentence of the 9th paragraph of the Discussion section should read ‘The figures indicate a current lifetime risk of approximately one in six for NMSC in females and one in four for males.’The authors apologize for this error.