SLCO4A1‐AS1 promotes cell growth and induces resistance in lung adenocarcinoma by modulating miR‐4701‐5p/NFE2L1 axis to activate WNT pathway. Cancer Med. 2020;9:7205‐7217. wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor‐in‐Chief, Dr Stephen Tait and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been requested by the Authors as the study design provided for insufficient results to support the argument, invalidating the conclusions of the paper.The above article, published online in Cancer Medicine on 6th August 2020 in Wiley Online Library ( SLCO4A1‐AS1 promotes cell growth and induces resistance in lung adenocarcinoma by modulating miR‐4701‐5p/NFE2L1 axis to activate WNT pathway. Cancer Med. 2020;9:7205‐7217. wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor‐in‐Chief, Dr Stephen Tait and John Wiley and Sons Ltd. The retraction has been requested by the Authors as the study design provided for insufficient results to support the argument, invalidating the conclusions of the paper.The above article, published online in Cancer Medicine on 6th August 2020 in Wiley Online Library (


In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 3 as published . We obseThe 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 would like to make the following corrections to this paper .In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 2. In the legend of Table 2, the indicators of a negative influence correspond to the number 1 and the indicators of a positive influence correspond to the number 2. The correct version of The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Retraction Note: Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery (2020) 15:309https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-020-01355-0The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article due to the lack of adherence to the journal's ethical standards and editorial policy. After publication, concerns were raised regarding the trial registration and ethics approval of this study. The authors have provided the ethics approval, which was dated after the patient recruitment start date.All authors agree to this retraction.


Sci., 2020, 11, 1926–1934, https://doi.org/10.1039/C9SC05506A.Correction for ‘A H The corrected version is displayed below. The data analysis and conclusions in the paper remain unchanged.It has come to the authors’ attention that there was one error in Fig. S6 in the ESI. An incorrect image for the H&E stained liver for the Fe-GA/CaOFig. S6 H&E staining of organs from each group of mice after different treatment. Scale bar: 100 μm. The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Retraction Note: J Ovarian Res 12, 118 (2019)https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-019-0593-2The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised regarding highly similar images between this article and a number of other articles that were submitted and published within a close time frame –5.The authors have stated that the image duplication occurred due to the use of a shared platform, and that the original data could not be retrieved. Due to the number and severity of the duplications, the Editors-in-Chief no longer have confidence in the presented data.All authors agree to this retraction.


Sci., 2016, 7, 4117–4124, https://doi.org/10.1039/C6SC00268D.Correction for ‘Structural tuning of organoruthenium compounds allows oxidative switch to control ER stress pathways and bypass multidrug resistance’ by Mun Juinn Chow  Fig. 3 was included in the original article, where two incorrect images were used, namely RAS-1H LD treatment and RAS-1H HD treatment, resulting in an unintentional duplication. The correct version of Fig. 3 is presented here, which is now consistent with Fig. S5a from the ESI of the original publication.The authors regret that an incorrect version of Fig. 3 Complexes RAS-1H and RAS-1T induce early time-point ROS and activate cellular antioxidant defense mechanism. (a) Detection of ROS with carboxy-H2DCFDA (20 μM) after treatment with RAS-1H and RAS-1T for 3 h, 6 h and 9 h using a microplate assay. Mean ± s.e.m. . (b) Detection of ROS with a fluorescence microscope after treatment for 6 h. (c) Western blot analysis of Nrf-2, a central protein in cellular antioxidant defence and (d) expression levels of Nrf-2 target gene in AGS cells after treatment with RAS-1H, RAS-1T and cisplatin at LD and HD for 6 h and 24 h. Homogeneous protein loading determined with reference to actin and gene expression normalized against tbp levels.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 Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Fig. 5C were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors at different research institutes. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published, prior to its submission to


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-018-26496-0, published online 25 May 2018Retraction of: 2.In Figure 2A images of scratch wound assays in BxPC-3 and Panc-1 cells in control and I-BET762 groups appear to overlap with data described in6.In Figure 2D images of colony formation assays in BxPC-3 and Panc-1 cells in control and I-BET762 groups appear to overlap with data described in7.In Figure 3A the images of sphere formation assays appear to overlap with those described inThe Editors have retracted this Article. After the publication of this Article it was brought to the Editors' attention that some of the data appear to overlap with data in other articles with different authors, where they are attributed to different experiments. Specifically:The Editors reached out to the Authors to request raw data. The Authors were unable to provide the data and the concerns remain unresolved. The Editors therefore no longer have confidence in the results presented in this Article. All Authors agree to this retraction.


The authors regret that the original version of above paper, unfortunately, contained three typos consisting of the incorrect spelling of “Toll-like receptor” acronym, TRL4 instead of TLR4. The correct spelling is shown below:Title: “Inflammatory extracellular vesicles prompt heart dysfunction via TLR4-dependent NF-κB activation”Introduction: “The systemic release of different subsets of cytokines and proteins by polarized M1/M2 macrophages implies the activation of toll-like receptor (TLR) and subsequent NF-κB signalling cascades [8].”Methods: “transmission electron microscopy; TLR: activation of toll-like receptor”The correction made in this erratum does not concern any published data. The authors apologize for any inconvenience that the errors may have caused.


Correction: Aging Clinical and Experimental Research (2020) 32:2141–2158 10.1007/s40520-020-01677-yIn the Acknowledgements section of this article the grant number relating to National Institutes of Health given was incorrectly given asThe authors would like to thank Benjamin D Keane for his assistance in preparing the manuscript. The authors would also like to acknowledge generous support from the Carinato Charitable Foundation, Mark and Ingeborg Holliday, Kristin Hudson and Rob Goldman, and Ms. Susan Brice and Mr. Jordi Esteve.and should have beenThe authors would like to thank Benjamin D Keane for his assistance in preparing the manuscript. The authors would also like to acknowledge generous support from the Carinato Charitable Foundation, Mark and Ingeborg Holliday, Kristin Hudson and Rob Goldman, and Ms. Susan Brice and Mr. Jordi Esteve. In addition, the authors would also like to acknowledge funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through grant #R01CA225002.The original article has been corrected.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-023-43475-2, published online 26 September 2023Retraction of: The Authors have retracted this Article. After the publication of the Article, the Authors discovered that their TAW-2000 rock testing machine had developed a malfunction. The machine was used in most of the experiments and the Authors cannot be certain at which point the machine failed. The Authors therefore no longer have confidence in the data.All Authors agree to this retraction.


Wang JY, Lu L and He X analyzed the data. Ma LJ provided critical inputs on interpretation of the study. All authors had access to the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript as submitted.


Silene succulenta promote in vitro MCF-7 breast carcinoma cell apoptosis by cell cycle arrest and in silico mitotic Mps1/TTK inhibition’ by Sarah A. Badawy et al., RSC Adv., 2023, 13, 18627–18638, https://doi.org/10.1039/D3RA01793A.Correction for ‘New cyclic glycolipids from  The authors regret that the name of one of the authors  was shown incorrectly in the original article.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


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.


Computer tomography showed opacification of the right sinonasal air spaces Written informed consent was obtained from the patient for the publication of this case report and the accompanying images, and the case report was approved by the Ethical Committees of the First Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University.The authors have confirmed clinical trial registration is not needed for this submission.The authors have confirmed patient consent statement is not needed for this submission.


There are errors in the Funding section. The correct Funding statement is: The authors acknowledge the financial support by the University of Graz.


The Science of Nature grants the Arnold Berliner Award to the lead author of an article which represents excellent, original, and—especially—interdisciplinary research. As such, the winning articles clearly reflect the vision of Arnold Berliner (Autrum As every year, r Autrum . Springer Autrum , a 2-yeaI am very proud that, this year, the Editorial Board of our journal has decided to award Cynthia Tedore Fig.  for the On behalf of the Editorial Board, I congratulate Cynthia Tedore, the two co-first authors Mateusz Glenszyk and David Outomuro, and the rest of the team on the award.


Nature Communications 10.1038/ncomms8872, published online 05 August 2015Retraction to: 1 where a different material was used. Figures 4b and 4c contain sections with an unexplained blank section not matching the background or image. The EDX images in Figures 4d–4f were modified before publication. The background noise in the XRD spectra in Supplementary Figure 9 shows a much higher degree of overlap than would be expected for different cycles.The authors have retracted this article because there are a number of flaws in the figures and data. Figure 2c and the EDS mappings in Figures 2d, 2e and 2f were re-used from the authors previous workThe authors sincerely apologize to the scientific community for any confusion caused by these errors. All authors agree to this retraction.


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 Editor's attention by a concerned reader that the western blotting data shown in Fig. 4A were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors at different research institutes, several of which have been retracted. Owing to the fact that the contentious 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 did not receive any reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Owing to the fact that some of the data in the above article had already been published, or were under consideration for publication, prior to its submission to


In the above‐stated article, the authors mistakenly placed a duplicated images of Collagen I staining for the UIRI and UIRI/AMD groups in Figure The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.


Cell Death and Disease 10.1038/s41419-020-03266-3, published online 12 December 2020Retraction to: The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article at the authors’ request. After publication, concerns were raised regarding image similarities between this article and a number of previously published articles, specifically:Several images in Fig. 6D and E appear highly similar to those in Fig. 6C and D in , Fig. 6DFig. 5E input appears highly similar to Fig. 4E input in .The authors have stated that the images in Fig. 6 were misused and could not be reproduced, which undermined the reliability of the conclusions. The Editors-in-Chief therefore no longer have confidence in the presented data and the conclusions of the article.All authors agree to this retraction.


The authors made the following changes to their paper . The autFigure 6I (marked in red) was corrected fromtoA correction has been made to Section 3.7:The sentence “In contrast, HSD17B4 remained unchanged and the AR, ER1 and SF-1 were conversely down-regulated for NCI-H295R.For TVBF-7, again, all levels remained unchanged” was modified to “In contrast, HSD17B4 remained unchanged, SF-1 was upregulated and AR and ER1 were conversely down-regulated for NCI-H295R. For TVBF-7, again, all levels remained unchanged”.A correction has been made to Section 4, paragraphs 4 and 5:The sentence “Of note, SF-1 is a key regulator of human sex determination [39] and was upon FSK stimulation strikingly different regulated in NCI-H295R (down), MUC-1 (up) and TVBF-7 (unchanged)” was corrected to “Of note, SF-1 is a key regulator of human sex determination [39] and its activation might lead to different downstream effects in tissues of male and female origin”.The sentence “Of note, the AR was again markedly different regulated following the same patterns as observed for SF-1 in NCI-H295R (down), MUC-1 (up) and TVBF-7 (unchanged)” was corrected to “Of note, the AR was markedly differently regulated in NCI-H295R (down), MUC-1 (up) and TVBF-7 (unchanged)”.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 would like to make the following corrections to the publication :Marcellina M. Stolting was not included as an author in the original publication [Author Contributions: Conceptualization, D.v.L. and M.M.S.; Methodology, D.v.L. and M.M.S.; Data curation, J.C.M.V.; Validation, J.C.M.V.; Formal analysis, D.v.L. and J.C.M.V.; Investigation, D.v.L.; Project administration, D.v.L.; Resources, D.v.L.; Writing—original draft, D.v.L. and M.M.S.; Visualization, D.v.L., J.C.M.V. and R.J.C.; Writing—review & editing D.v.L., J.C.M.V. and R.J.C.; Supervision, R.J.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.lication . The corMarcellina M. Stolting’s affiliation and email is added (affiliation 3): Cat Behaviour Consultancy, P.O. Box 11375, 1001 GJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; info@kattengedragstherapie.nl.Accordingly, The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.


In the original publication  there waE. coli and S. aureus, respectively.Due to this correction in Figure 6, the reported values of the released AgNPs in the original publication  from hydThe authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Food Sci Nutr. 2021; 9: 2531–2540 (https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2202).Tian, L, Lin, X, Xiong, Y, Ding, Z. “Design and performance test on segmented‐differential threshing and separating unit for head‐feed combine harvester.” wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief, Y. Martin Lo, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The retraction has been agreed as the author has discovered an incorrect coded value in the levels of test factors in Table 2, thus affecting the interpretation of the results so that the conclusions of this manuscript are not reliable.The above article, published online on March 8, 2021 in Wiley Online Library ( Food Sci Nutr. 2021; 9: 2531–2540 (https://doi.org/10.1002/fsn3.2202).Tian, L, Lin, X, Xiong, Y, Ding, Z. “Design and performance test on segmented‐differential threshing and separating unit for head‐feed combine harvester.” wileyonlinelibrary.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor in Chief, Y. Martin Lo, and Wiley Periodicals LLC. The retraction has been agreed as the author has discovered an incorrect coded value in the levels of test factors in Table 2, thus affecting the interpretation of the results so that the conclusions of this manuscript are not reliable.The above article, published online on March 8, 2021 in Wiley Online Library (


Cell Death Dis 10: 717, 2019. The authors regret that the data in question featured in the original


Retraction note: Nanoscale Res Lett (2021) 16:28https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-021-03477-3The Editors in Chief have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised about the appearance of Western blots and the data in Table 1 that indicates that miR-124-3p may have been the target of the assays instead of miR-124-5p. The authors were unable to provide uncropped gels and blots and stated that some blots have been modified for "aesthetics " reasons. The Editors, therefore, have lost confidence in the integrity of the article's findings. Jian Hu agrees with this retraction. Chunling Tang did not respond to correspondence from the Editor about this retraction.


Furthermore, they apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.The authors have re-examined their data and realized that


The journal retracts the 28 June 2017 article cited above.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the images in the published figures, with areas of image duplication in Figures 2E and 6G. The authors failed to provide a satisfactory explanation 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.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Molecular Neuroscience and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors did not agree to this retraction.


This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Are We Sure We Fully Understand What an Infodemic Is? A Global Perspective on Infodemiological Problems.”This paper  is a wel


The authors would like to correct a mistake in The corrected The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.


Nature 10.1038/s41586-022-04966-w Published online 22 June 2022Correction to: In the version of the article initially published, in the penultimate paragraph of the “Attribution and administrative data” section, the sentences now reading “Notably, after including controls, the gender gap remains for all job titles except undergraduates. The gender gap similarly remains for 9 out of 13 fields for publications and 8 out of 13 fields for patents, after including controls” have been corrected from “Notably, after including controls, the gender gap is significant for all job titles except undergraduates. The gender gap is similarly significant for 9 out of 13 fields for publications and 5 out of 13 fields for patents, after including controls”. In the “Ethical approval” section, under “Analytical sample”, “weighted” was added to the sentence now reading “If these numbers are converted to rates, the weighted attribution rate on scientific documents was 3.17%”. These changes have been made to the HTML and PDF versions of the article.


The correct version of the result in the abstract can be found below:In the original published version of this article, the authors provided the results of the abstract incorrectly and the result of the abstract alone has been updated. "The number of rib fractures was associated with an increased risk of pulmonary injuries: pulmonary contusion ; hemothorax ; pneumothorax ; and hemopneumothorax ."Original:"The number of rib fractures was associated with an increased risk of pulmonary injury: all pulmonary injuries, OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.59–2.16, p < 0.01; pulmonary contusion, OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.33–1.69, p < 0.01; hemothorax, OR 1.49, 95% CI 1.32–1.68, p < 0.01, and pneumothorax, OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30–1.65, p < 0.01."Requested Change:The authors apologize for the errors. Both the HTML and PDF versions of the article have been updated to correct the errors.The authors declare the following conflict of interests: Fukushima, Kambe, Aramaki, and Oshima received research funding for this study from the SUBARU Corporation; however, the SUBARU Corporation had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication. Ichikawa, Isshiki, Nakajima, and Sawada have no conflicts of interest to declare related to the study.


Following the publication of this article , concernThe following panels appear similar:Lanes 1–3 of the Fig 2D p-PERK panel and lanes 2–4 of the Fig 2D IRE1α panel.The Fig 2D p-PERK panel of this study  and laneThe IRE1α panel of this study .Lanes 2–5 of the Fig 4A GRP78 panel of this study  and the Lanes 3–6 of the Fig 4A p-STAT3 panel of this study  and the The Fig 6D p-JAK2 panel of this study  and the The S2 Fig A p-STAT3 panel of this study  and laneLanes 2–3 of the S2 Fig A STAT3 panel of this study  and laneThe authors did not respond to editorial requests for underlying data.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the integrity of these data, the CW agreed with the retraction. XY, HL, XZ, LZ, XL, and SS either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


The corrected figure is shown here. The error appears in print and in PDFs downloaded before April 10, 2023. The authors apologize for the error and any confusion.After publication, it was discovered that the image in


Retraction Note: Diabetologia (2022) 65:1519-153310.1007/s00125-022-05718-1The authors have retracted this article following the discovery of a data processing error that impacts the results. Specifically, the number of cells sequenced and analyzed was significantly lower than reported in the article. The authors have reanalyzed the data and concluded that, while the overall conclusions have not changed, many of the details have. The nature of this error makes correction unfeasible.The authors thank colleagues for bringing this error to their attention and apologize to the community.All authors agree with this retraction.


Figure 3. Many of the references cited are also considered to be inappropriate or outdated. An investigation was conducted in accordance with Frontiers’ and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines, whereby it was confirmed that the complaints were valid.Following publication, concerns were raised to the journal regarding factual inaccuracies throughout the Review article text and errors in the data presented in This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Plant Science and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The authors agree to the retraction.


Because of a production error,the affiliations of two authors were transposed. Here are the correctaffiliations for Bart de Nijs and Stuart Gibson:Bartde Nijsbd355@cam.ac.ukNanoPhotonics Centre, Cavendish Laboratory, Universityof Cambridge,Cambridge CB3 0HE, U.K. Email: Stuart Gibsons.j.gibson@kent.ac.ukSchool of Physics and Astronomy,University of Kent, CanterburyCT2 7NH, U.K. Email:


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 19, 318 (2019)10.1186/s12906-019-2718-yThe Editor has retracted this article because the DAPI, TUNEL and Merged images in Fig. 6 do not appear to correspond with each other. In addition, the authors have not been able to provide original western blotting data that match the images shown in this article. The Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions presented. Zi-ming Zhao and Yuan-liang Liu disagree with this retraction. Wei Liu, Hua-feng Pan and Li-zhu Lin have not responded to correspondence from the Editor about this retraction.


Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine. 2019, 7(12), e991. https://doi.org/10.1002/mgg3.991.Ying, X., Zhu, J., and Zhang, Y. “Circular RNA circ‐TSPAN4 promotes lung adenocarcinoma metastasis by upregulating ZEB1 via sponging miR‐665”. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal Editor‐in‐Chief Dr. Suzanne Hart, and John Wiley & Sons. The retraction has been agreed due to concerns raised by the authors regarding problems with the statistics and also concerns raised by a third party about image manipulation in Figure 2. The journal team have investigated and determined that these concerns undermine the reliability of the data presented and the article‘s conclusions.The above article, published online on 01 October 2019 in Wiley Online Library (


This article has been retracted: Several images in this paper are duplicates of images in other published papers. In Figure 5C, a panel is duplicated within Figure 6D of another paper [er paper . In Figuer paper . In Figuer paper . Althoug65823-65835. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.19502Original article: Oncotarget. 2017; 8:65823–65835.


Correlation analysis between required surgical indexes and complications in patients with coronary heart disease by Tao M, Yao X, Sun S, Qin Y, Li D, Wu J, Xiong Y, Teng Z, Zeng Y and Luo Z (2022) Front. Surg. 9:948666. doi: 10.3389/fsurg.2022.948666A Retraction of the Original Research Article Following publication, the publisher uncovered evidence that several false identities were used in the peer-review process. The assignment of false reviewers was confirmed by an investigation conducted in accordance with Frontiers' policies and the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines.The investigation also uncovered concerns about the presentation and validity of the data in the article. The authors did not respond to contact regarding the data presented in the article.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Surgery and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers.The authors did not respond to contact regarding this retraction.


After this article  was publIn Fig 5A, the two H&E stain Sham panels are duplicated in the cortex Sham panels in Fig 4A in .In Fig 5B, the two Masson stain Sham panels are duplicated in the cortex Sham panels in Fig 4B in .In Fig 5C, the two H&E stain Sham panels are duplicated in the medulla Sham panels in Fig 4A in .In Fig 5D, the two Masson stain Sham panels are duplicated in the medulla Sham panels in Fig 4B in .The β-actin 42kDa panel in Fig 6A appears similar to the β-actin 42kDa panel in Fig 8A.In Fig 6C, the two Sham panels are duplicated in the Sham panels in Fig 7C when rotated 180°, the cortex Sham panels in Fig 5B in , and theIn Fig 6D, the two Sham panels are duplicated in the medulla Sham panels in Fig 5B in .In Fig 6D, the two CKD panels are duplicated in the CKD panels in Fig 7D.In Fig 7D, the two Sham panels are duplicated in the medulla Sham panels in Fig 6B in .In Fig 8E, the two Sham panels appear similar to the Sham panels in Fig 7B in .In Fig 8F, the two Sham panels appear similar to the Sham panels in Fig 7C in .During editorial follow-up on these issues, the corresponding author stated that the eight Sham panels in Figs 5A-D, the four Sham panels in Figs 6C-D, the two CKD panels in Fig 6D, and the four Sham panels in Figs 7C-D in  were incPLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the extent of the above issues with Figs 5–8 that question the reliability of these data, the CTC agreed with the retraction. YHC, CAY, CCY, and SPH either did not respond directly or could not be reached.Owing to the concerns about similarities with previously published content , publish


Retraction Note : Journal of Eating Disorders (2023) 11:79 10.1186/s40337-023-00808-wThe authors have retracted this article following discussions with multiple stakeholders. The authors offer their deepest apologies for the distress and the unintended negative impact of this piece.


Correction to: Journal of Hematology & Oncology (2019) 12:20 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13045-019-0708-7Further duplicated images have been found in Fig S6D with different data labels;In Fig. S6H an image of mice appears to not interact with the background in Fig. S6H.The Editor in Chief has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised in relation to overlaps between Figs. 2G and 4G as well as 2G and 4E. Additional investigation by the publisher found further concerns:Therefore, the Editor in Chief has lost confidence in the integrity of the results. Bin Xiong has stated on behalf of all authors that they disagree to this retraction.


The published article  has beenPolymers Editorial Office and the authors, the paper has been retracted and will be marked accordingly. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4360/13/19/3354.Following its publication, the authors contacted the Editorial Office regarding legal issues related to confidentiality and a copyright issue. Zhengzhou University was not aware that the article had been submitted for publication and did not agree to the publication of the paper in its current form. Thus, in agreement with the This retraction has been approved by the Editor-in-Chief of the journal.The authors agree to this retraction.


They also apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.Following the publication of the above article, an interested reader drew to the authors’ attention that, for the morphological observations of chondrocytes portrayed in


The authors wish to correct the following errors in the original paper .dE and iPAR, were scaled by a factor of 100. Therefore, the reported coefficients and corrections were all a factor of 100 higher for the reported units. This erroneous scaling factor was applied to all wavebands and iPAR in both data used to compute the sensor-specific, temperature-dependent dark corrections (Equation (1) in the manuscript) and in the profile data to which the corrections were applied (by Equation (5) in the manuscript). We make the following corrections.The authors realized a typo in the software used for analysis in the original manuscript by which the input data, for both The following correction has been made to the Abstract:The corrections are based on modeling the temperature of the radiometer and show an average bias in the measured value of nearly Profile Extraction, Quality Control and Modeling under Section 2: Materials and Methods, in the sixth paragraph, we make the correction:In the subsection PAR| < 0.5 We constrained measurements to the range |Profile Extraction, Quality Control and Modeling under Section 2: Materials and Methods, in the seventh paragraph, we make the correction:In the subsection dEd/dTs is small (−2 nm−1 °C−1) and hence not detectable relative to other environmental processes if the temperature gradient in a profile is too small.This test is important as In Section 3: Results, in the second paragraph, we make the correction:In Section 4: Discussion and Summary, in the first paragraph, we make the following correction:For this BGC-Argo dataset, the mean absolute temperature corrections on In Section 4: Discussion and Summary, in the fourth paragraph, we make the following correction:They provide a model that includes drift correction, where in certain, but rare, cases they observed a drift as much as In Section 4: Discussion and Summary, in the fourth paragraph, we make the following correction:The values of our modeled coefficients In Section 4: Discussion and Summary, in the fourth paragraph, we make the following correction:dE: at 10 m, our average PAR correction is on the order of 0.001% of the 10 m measured PAR value, analogous to the average 10 m correction at all three wavelengths. Overall we find very similar results between our method and . For We update We update We apologize for the inconvenience or confusion caused by our error in the original manuscript. The changes do not affect the method presented, but they do affect the magnitude of the bias identified in the sensors. The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Editorial Expression of Concern: Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance (2017) 19:1 10.1186/s12968-016-0318-2The Editor-in-Chief would like to alert readers that concerns have been raised regarding the data in this article.Journal of Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance in December 2020 to report that authors Ferreira, Piechnik and Wijesurendra had re-analyzed the available data and were unable to reproduce some of the results reported in this article.Authors Vanessa M. Ferreira, Stefan K. Piechnik and Stefan Neubauer reached out to the Thorough  reanalysis of available data found that the strong links between the splenic signal intensity change and delta spleen T1, and the ability of delta spleen T1 to predict the splenic switch-off sign, could not be independently reproduced, although the general observations reported in Table 2 (that the spleen T1 decreases significantly in response to Adenosine) and inter-observer reproducibility of delta spleen T1 could be reproduced.As a result of the information available, the Editor-in-Chief advises readers to interpret the results of this publication with due caution.Authors Rohan S. Wijesurendra, Rina Ariga, Eylem Levelt, Stefan Neubauer, Stefan K. Piechnik and Vanessa M. Ferreira agree to this Expression of Concern. Authors Alexander Liu, Masliza Mahmod, Andreas Greiser, Mario Petrou, George Krasopoulos, John C. Forfar, Rajesh K. Kharbanda and Keith M. Channon have not responded to correspondence from the editor regarding this Expression of Concern.


Horiz., 2023, 10, 171–178, https://doi.org/10.1039/D2MH01117D.Correction for ‘Elucidating the role of multivalency, shape, size and functional group density on antibacterial activity of diversified supramolecular nanostructures enabled by templated assembly’ by Amrita Sikder  The authors wish to rectify an error in the published article: in The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


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.


Yu JX and Yuan DD carried out data curation. Li L and Wang YJ provided critical inputs on design, analysis, and interpretation of the study. All the authors had access to the data. All authors read and approved the final manuscript as submitted.


The Royal Society of Chemistry is publishing this expression of concern in order to alert readers that concerns have been raised regarding the integrity of the NMR data in the ESI.Several impurity peaks have been removed from the NMR spectra. The authors have provided the original raw data, however, an independent expert has stated it would not be appropriate to re-publish the original spectra and requested the authors reproduce their results.An expression of concern will continue to be associated with the article until we receive conclusive evidence regarding the reliability of the reported data.Laura Fisher30th June 2023RSC AdvancesExecutive Editor,


Namely, the stereochemistry of twopyridyl rings of 2-phenylpyridine (ppy) and 4,6-difluorophenylpyridineligands (two Ir–N coordination bonds) in 2 and 3 were drawn in cis positions around Ir cationin our original publication, and it is corrected to trans positions in this correction. This change does not impact the object,results, and conclusions in the original publication.Page 11326: The chemical structuresof Δ-


Chem. Chem. Phys., 2023, 25, 462–470, https://doi.org/10.1039/D2CP03841B.Correction for ‘Helium nanodroplets as an efficient tool to investigate hydrogen attachment to alkali cations’ by Siegfried Kollotzek  In the published version of this manuscript, acknowledgement for one of the funding sources was inadvertently omitted. The authors would like to include “S. K. is supported by the Austrian Science Fund (FWF) W1259-N27” in the Acknowledgements.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


This is a peer review submitted for the paper “A Framework for a Statistical Characterization of Epidemic Cycles: COVID-19 Case Study.”This paper  attempts2 values, which readers can be expected to understand (and those who do not could learn via appropriate citations). Certainly, the formula for R2 is not necessary to include. These types of revisions would make the paper a more readable length.I think the paper would benefit from focusing on the central point, with only a minor description of any methods necessary to make that point. For example, most of section 2 (“On the Nature of the Observed Data”) includes a lengthy description of the use of moving averages and RThe authors claim the Chinese epidemic cycle has a Gaussian shape, but even in their own drawing it appears much more like a gamma distribution (as would be expected) than Gaussian. They may want to reconsider this section.The crux of this paper seems to be looking for epidemic curves that appear similarly shaped in various countries, and using that to predict the curves for countries where the cycle has not yet reached what the authors term the “MLCE end.” I have never heard of epidemic predictions using a method such as this, and it seems there are many far superior methods for estimating trajectory, so this is a curious choice.Citations require appropriate formatting for journal publications.


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


Retraction note: Nanoscale Research Letters (2021) 16:165https://doi.org/10.1186/s11671-021-03608-wThe Editors in Chief have retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised concerning the authors' contributions and the integrity of the article. The authors did not respond to requests for further clarification and did not supply raw data or the ethics permit. The Editors, therefore, have lost confidence in the integrity of the article's findings. The authors did not respond to any correspondence from the Editor about this retraction.


This article written by Smithsonian Ocean staff provides a good overview of hydrothermal vent communities suitable for non‐scientific readers.This report reviews the microbial diversity and microbe‐mineral interactions in deep‐ocean hydrothermal environments.Ridgeia piscesae.This report dealt with the rich taxonomic diversity in vent communities, with a particular focus on those within the tubeworm This article covered microbial succession during a change from active to inactive deep‐sea sulfide chimneys.This paper is a broad overview of microbial population at deep‐sea areas containing hydrothermal vents.This page provides a summary of a published paper on gene transfer in deep‐sea hydrothermal vent bacteria. It contains a link to the original article.This article by Jannasch and Mottl is one of the classics in the field of hydrothermal vent chemistry and microbiology.There are numerous videos on life in deep‐sea environments. This is one of the longest and most comprehensive of those.This page of the Microbe Wiki describes deep sea vent properties, global locations, bacterial communities, and eukaryotic organisms present in those environments.This report describes the isolation and characterization of a green sulfur bacterial species from a deep‐ocean hydrothermal vent that is proposed to use geothermal radiation as a source of photons to be absorbed by its photosynthetic pigments.This article reviews knowledge of, and techniques for studying, hydrogen uptake and hydrogen evolving enzymes involved in hydrogen cycling at hydrothermal vents.This study samples several deep‐sea hydrothermal vents to sequence viruses that were present. The general conclusions were that diverse viruses were present with different assemblages that are highly localized to specific areas and hosts.


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 Editor's attention by a concerned reader that a data panel portraying cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Fig. 7C was strikingly similar to a panel that had appeared in another article by different authors at a different research institute, which had been submitted for publication earlier than the submission date of this article. Moreover, a large number of overlapping data panels were identified comparing the data in Figs. 4A and B and 7C and D. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in Fig. 7C in the above article were already under consideration for publication prior to its submission to


This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper "COVID-19 and Cybersecurity: Finally, an Opportunity to Disrupt?"Conclusion section in order to make it more clearly informative.Dear Authors, the article  is well


The values 0.82 and 0.88 should be 0.10 and 0.80, respectively. The error has now been corrected online, and the authors regret any confusion that it has caused.


In “Acceptability and Feasibility of a Return-to-Work Intervention for Posttreatment Breast Cancer Survivors: Protocol for a Co-design and Development Study” :e37009) the authors noted an error.The following sentence and reference  were delParticipants will be instructed to not work on existing or unappreciated resources for people affected by cancer, such as a pamphlet or a website that already exists in Canada .All subsequent references have been renumbered accordingly.The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on July 18, 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.


Lastly, the authors apologize to the readership for any inconvenience these errors may have caused.After having examined their original data, the authors have realized that these figures were inadvertently assembled incorrectly. The corrected versions of


Aging Cell, 20(3), e13332. https://doi.org/10.1111/acel.13332Hyun‐ju Lee, Seong Gak Jeon, Jieun Kim, Ri Jin Kang, Seong‐Min Kim, Kyung‐Min Han, HyunHee Park, Ki‐taek Kim, You Me Sung, Hye Yeon Nam, Young Ho Koh, Minseok Song, Kyoungho Suk, Hyang‐Sook Hoe. In the published version of Lee et al. , the autThe authors would like to apologize for the inconvenience caused.


After verifying the source data, the unit has been replaced by ng/mL in both the text and the figure. This has been corrected online.The authors apologize for this error and any confusion it may have caused.


Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the images in the published figures. The authors failed to provide a satisfactory explanation 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.The co-authors, Dr. Weiliang Jiang and Dr. Jie Shen agreed to this retraction.This retraction was approved by the Chief Editor of Frontiers in Cellular and Developmental Biology and the Editor-in-Chief of Frontiers.


Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/srep28666, published online 27 June 2016Retraction of: The Editors have retracted this Article.1, which reports an experiment in a different cell type. The Editors reached out to the Authors to request raw data, but were not able to contact any of them, nor to obtain any up to date contact information. Given the concerns about the veracity of the data, the Editors no longer have confidence in the results and conclusions presented in this Article.After the publication of this Article it was brought to the Editors’ attention that some of the western blot data in Figure 3(b) appear to replicate western blot data in Figure 1B inKun Liu, Ming-Ming Gu, Xin-Ming Chen, Shuang-Long Zhang, Kang-Jun Yu, and Qing-Sheng You have not responded to correspondence from the Editors about this retraction. The Editors were not able to obtain current email addresses for Hong-Lin Chen and Shuo Wang.


Furthermore, they regret any inconvenience caused to the readership.After re-examining their data, the authors have realized that the control blots in


Oncogenesis 10.1038/s41389-020-0230-3, published online 12 May 2020Retraction to: The Editor-in-Chief has retracted this article. Concerns were raising regarding Figure 2H. This figure appears to overlap with Figure 3G in an article by different authors that was simultaneously under consideration in another journal .The authors have provided partial raw data to address this concern. However, they have stated that some of the original data are no longer available. The Editor-in-Chief therefore no longer has confidence in the presented data.All authors agree to this retraction.


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.Following the publication of the above paper, it was drawn to the Editors’ attention by a concerned reader that cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Fig. 5C were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors, 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


Scientific Reports 10.1038/srep26051, published online 17 May 2016Retraction of: Editors have retracted this Article.After publication of this paper concerns about ethical oversight of this study were brought to the attention of the Editors. The Authors were not able to provide documentation of appropriate approval from an ethics committee in either Niger or Senegal, where the participants in this study were based.Catherine Robert agrees with this retraction. Matthieu Million, Jean-Christophe Lagier, Souleymane Brah, Cheikh Sokhna, Philippe Parola, and Didier Raoult disagree with this retraction. Caroline Michelle and Bernard Henrissat did not explicitly state whether they agree with this retraction. Maryam Tidjani Alou, Saber Khelaifia, Dipankar Bachar, Niokhor Dione, Perrine Hugon, Vincent Lombard, Fabrice Armougom, Julien Fromonot, Alexandre Fabre, and Régis Guieu did not respond to correspondence from the Editors about this retraction. The Editors were not able to confirm current contact details for Aldiouma Diallo.


The authors wish to make the following correction to this paper :Section 2.1. Study Design and Participants”, there was a mistake in the initial date of patient recruitment, which should be 4 June 2021, instead of 1 June 2021. The corrected date appears below:In the original publication, in ““We conducted a single-center, observational prospective cohort study involving MHD patients between 4 June and 31 December 2021 at Maharaj Nakorn Chiang Mai Hospital, which is an affiliated hospital of Chiang Mai University, Thailand.”The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Sci., 2023, 14, 8458–8465, https://doi.org/10.1039/D3SC03090C.Correction for ‘A visible-light-driven molecular motor based on barbituric acid’ by Kim Kuntze  The authors regret that the link included in the data availability statement was incorrect in the original article. The corrected data availability statement is shown below:https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/A_Visible-Light-Driven_Molecular_Motor_Based_on_Barbituric_Acid/23276999.The datasets supporting this article have been uploaded as part of the ESI. All cartesian coordinates for all the compounds considered are provided as a separate additional file in a fig-share repository with the following DOI: The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Following the original publication of Masunaga et al. , the aut20 = −66.1 .Hence, the sentence should read as follows: The purified pleostene exhibited an optical rotation value of [α]DThe authors apologize for this error and any confusion it may have caused.


Correction to: Quality of Life Research (2023) 32:2403–2413 10.1007/s11136-023-03402-4The authors regret that the affiliation of Professor Maria Grazia Benedetti published in the article was not correct. Hence, the updated affiliation of the author is provided in this correction.The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.


Error in Conflicts of InterestConflicts of Interest was described inaccurately. Please replace it with the following paragraph under the heading of Conflicts of Interest:In the original publication , Conflic“The publication presents the results of an industry collaborative research project. The project involves students and staff from Griffith University , Central Queensland University  and Bioproton Pty Ltd. . C.T. is supported by a PhD scholarship from Bioproton Pty Ltd.” The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.


Following the publication of this article , concernThe Fig 5C Bcl-2 and β-actin panels appear similar when color levels are adjusted to visualize the background.The Fig 6B 5µM (right) panel appears similar to the Fig 6B 10µM (left) panel.The Fig 8A AMP-001 GAPDH and AMP-002 GAPDH panels appear similar.○ There appears to be a region in lanes 1 and 2 in the β-actin results presented in the underlying data for the Fig 5C panels which does not appear to match the remainder of the blot, suggestive of inappropriate image manipulation.○ The underlying data provided in S1 File for Fig 5C do not appear to match the corresponding panels presented in Fig 5C.○ In the underlying data provided for Fig 5C, the sizes for the Bax and the β-actin results are both marked as 20kDa, despite their different locations on the blot.○ There appears to be a region in lanes 1–4 in the total PARP results presented in the underlying data for the Fig 8B panels which does not appear to match lane 5, suggestive of inappropriate image manipulation.○ The underlying data provided in S1 File for Figs 8A and 8B does not appear to match the corresponding panels presented in Fig 8.There are concerns with the underlying blot data presented in the published S1 File:○ The first TMD231 + 5 uM AMP-001 image  and the third TMD231 + 5 uM AMP-001 image .○ The first TMD231 + 10 uM AMP-001 image  and the third TMD231 + 10 uM AMP-001 image .The following S4 Fig panels appear to partially overlap:The corresponding author did not provide a clarification for the above concerns involving Figs 5, 8, and S1 File.The last author clarified that the panel duplication in Fig 6 was the result of an inadvertent image duplication introduced during the preparation of this figure, and the authors provided a replacement figure. The last author also clarified that the partially overlapping panels in S4 Fig represent triplicate data obtained from the same plates of cells, and apologized for the inadvertent errors in the published Fig 6.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels and underlying data that question the integrity of the data presented in Figs 5 and 8, and the S1 File, the CM agreed with the retraction. RSP and MT did not agree with the retraction. HN responded but neither agreed nor disagreed with the retraction decision. STV, RP, SR, and MA either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


Following the publication of this article , concernIn Fig 2d, band 2 in the PFMA-3 p-P53 panel appears similar to band 1 in the XRT p-P53 panel. Additionally, band 1 in the XRT panel appears to be flanked by vertical discontinuities.In Fig 2d, band 6 in the PFMA-3 p-P53 panel appears to be flanked by horizontal and vertical discontinuities.○ The 24 hour PFMA-3 panel in Fig 3a and the 24 hour XRT panel in Fig 3b.○ The ctrl PFMA-3 panel in Fig 3a and the 48 hour PFMA-3 panel in Fig 3b.○ The 48 hour PFMA-3 panel in Fig 3a and the 3 hour XRT panel in Fig 3cIn Fig 3 the following panels appear similar when levels are adjusted to visualise the background:In Fig 3d, bands 1–4 in the XRT p-P53 panel appear similar.In Figure 4d, bands 2 and 5 in the XRT Cleaved Caspase-9 panel appear similar.In Fig 9a, when levels are adjusted to visualise the background in the ctrl BODIPY panel there is a vertical discontinuity on the left side of the panel.The authors stated that underlying data for Figs 2, 3, and 4 were no longer available. The authors concurred with the assessment that band 2 and band 1 in the respective Fig 2d panels appeared similar. The PLOS Editors remain concerned about this figure. The authors stated the concerns in Fig 3a, 3b, and 3c were likely due to errors made during figure preparation. The authors stated that whilst similarities could be observed between bands denoted above in Fig 3d and Fig 4d, they asserted that these bands were not the same images. The authors stated the cause of the vertical discontinuity in Fig 9a was potentially caused by an error in the editing software used to process the image and provided the original underlying image to resolve the concern.PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the reliability of these data, the FB agreed with the retraction and apologized for the issues in the article. GCastellani, MS, LI, IZ, AMM, AC and EO did not agree with the retraction. SR, AT, DM and GCucchi either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


The authors wish to add two authors to the original paper .The authors are requesting a change of authorship for this paper: The paper was published with just Marko Mäkynen and Fernando S. Schlindwein as authors when it should have listed all four authors .The relevant manuscript contributors are not fully listed. After confirming all authors’ detailed contributions. It was decided to correct the authorship to appropriately list the significant contributions to the intellectual content of the manuscript.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.


This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Early Experience With Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibody Therapy for COVID-19: Retrospective Cohort Survival Analysis and Descriptive Study.”In this paper , the autAlthough this topic is not entirely new, the paper looks good to me and confirms other previously published data.As Tables 1 and 2 are quite complex, they need a clear legend and not just the title, as reported.For greater clarity, the figures should also be better explained.In the Introduction and Discussion when talking about COVID-19, for the sake of clarity, we need to better explain the inflammation that kills people and not just go straight to the monoclonal antibodies. Therefore, to make this paper more interesting for the readers of this important journal, the authors should expand the discussion on this subject a little to give a wider view to the reader.


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.It has been noted by a reader that there is a similarity of the Western blots with those in several other unrelated publications suspected of originating from a third party. The reader has also identified highly similar data between this publication, and that of Mao et al. 2017 (doi: 10.3892/ijo.2017.4122) and Lv et al. 2019 (doi: 10.2147/cmar.s199818).The authors were contacted regarding the concerns raised and provided the Editorial Office with copies of the original Western blots, however minor differences in the shape and spacing of the bands, as well as the addition/removal of background and surface features can be seen between the original submitted Figures and the raw Western blots images provided post-publication. The authors state that these differences are due to staining due to improper preservation.


Retraction Note: BMC Complement Med Ther 17, 240 (2017).10.1186/s12906-017-1642-2The Editor has retracted this article. After publication, concerns were raised about three of the figures:Panels A1 and F1 in Fig. 8 appear to be duplicates.Panels D and F in Fig. 6 appear to overlap.Panel E2 in Fig. 2 appears to be identical with Fig. 3 in .The authors have provided data files. However, these have not allayed the concerns and the Editor therefore no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions presented. None of the authors has responded to correspondence from the Editor about this retraction.


Bioinformatics, Volume 39, Issue 7, July 2023, https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btad412.This is a correction to “Retraction of: DeepCRISTL: deep transfer learning to predict CRISPR/Cas9 functional and endogenous on-target editing efficiency”, The retraction notice text has been updated, because we have subsequently discovered that the authors did not receive the journal’s communications to them asking them to address the flaws. This correction does not change the outcome or decision to retract.


In the original publication , ref. ,  corresponding microscopic model diagrams before and after growing VACNTs, respectively. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier 2023 [36].The citation has now been inserted in the caption of Figure 3 and should read: SEM images of CF: (a) adsorption and desorption curves; (b) the pore width. Reprinted with permission from Elsevier 2023 [36].The citation has now been inserted in the caption of Figure 4 and should read: BET analysis results [36] of CF with growing VACNTs in situ: (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.


Sci., 2021, 12, 2898–2908, https://doi.org/10.1039/D0SC05172A.Correction for ‘2-Mercaptomethyl-thiazolidines use conserved aromatic–S interactions to achieve broad-range inhibition of metallo-β-lactamases’ by Maria-Agustina Rossi  The ESI of the original article has been updated to include the corrected CIF file of compound L-1a.The authors regret that the CIF file of compound L-The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


This is a peer-review report submitted for the paper “Postacute Sequelae of COVID-19 and Adverse Psychiatric Outcomes: Protocol for an Etiology and Risk Systematic Review.”The authors lay out a reasonable protocol for this type of investigation .Do you have any serious concerns about the manuscript such as fraud, plagiarism, unethical or unsafe practices?No.Have authors’ provided the necessary ethics approval (from authors’ institution or an ethics committee)?Yes.How would you rate the English language quality?High quality.Is the reasons for conducting the study and its objectives clearly explained?Yes.Is the study design appropriate?Yes.Are sufficient details provided so that the method can be replicated?Yes.Are datasets available so that others could use them?Not applicable.Based on your answers in section 3 how could the author improve the protocol?It is appropriate as it is.Do you have any other feedback or comments for the Author?The authors lay out a reasonable protocol for this type of investigation that is based on a fairly standard approach with the standard GRADE grading approach.Verified manuscript: The content is scientifically sound, and only minor amendments (if any) are suggested.


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


Following the publication of this article , concernIn Fig 1A there appears to be an overlap between the 20ng/mL CD40L and 40ng/mL CD40L panels. Additionally, there are several cells in the 40ng/mL CD40L panel that do not appear in the 20ng/mL CD40L panel despite the overall overlap.The actin panel in Fig 2B appears similar to the actin panel in Fig 6A despite representing different experimental conditions.PLOS ONE Editors remain concerned about the issues in Figs 1, 2, and 6 which cannot be resolved in the absence of the original underlying data.The authors did not respond to the concerns raised and the underlying data was not provided for editorial review. The PLOS ONE Editors retract this article.In light of the concerns affecting multiple figure panels that question the integrity and reliability of these data, the All authors either did not respond directly or could not be reached.


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 scratch-wound data shown in Fig. 3A were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in another article by different authors. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere prior to its submission to


After having conducted an independent investigation of this paper in the Editorial Office, it was discovered that certain data in Fig. 2 were shared with the following paper, which had already been published by different authors at a different research institute, and which itself has subsequently been retracted: Huang X, Zhou W, Zhang Y and Liu Y: High expression of PTGR1 promotes NSCLC cell growth via positive regulation of cyclin-dependent protein kinase complex. Biomed Res Int: 5230642, 2016.Oncology Letters has determined that this paper should be retracted from the journal. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused.On account of the fact that certain data in this paper had already been published in another article, and in line with the authors’ request, the Editor of


BJGP Open 2022; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGPO.2022.0126, there was an omission from the competing interests paragraph. The text should read: ‘Nicholas Panay is the founder of a private menopause clinic and has received funds for research and speaking from pharmaceutical companies. He was not involved in the analysis of this study. The other authors have no competing interests.’ The online version has been corrected.In the article by Alsugeir


The above article, published online on 03 January 2020 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Professor Rong Fu, and Wiley Periodicals, LLC. The retraction has been agreed following concerns raised by a third party about image duplication . Upon investigation, the journal determined that the duplicated images were provided by a third party company who performed the experiments on behalf of the authors. The authors were unable to verify the provenance of the images. As a result, the journal no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions drawn and are issuing a retraction. The above article, published online on 03 January 2020 in Wiley Online Library (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com), has been retracted by agreement between the authors, the journal's Editor‐in‐Chief, Professor Rong Fu, and Wiley Periodicals, LLC. The retraction has been agreed following concerns raised by a third party about image duplication . Upon investigation, the journal determined that the duplicated images were provided by a third party company who performed the experiments on behalf of the authors. The authors were unable to verify the provenance of the images. As a result, the journal no longer has confidence in the results and conclusions drawn and are issuing a retraction.


Cell Death Discovery 10.1038/s41420-022-01000-w, published online 20 April 2022Retraction to: The Editor in Chief has retracted this article. Concerns were raised about the apparent overlap between the two middle panels in Fig. 5H (si-RNF-44-1) and insufficient information about size of tumours in Fig. 7a. The authors did not provide raw data or proof that an ethics approval had been obtained before the beginning of the study. Additionally, Shaohua Ge stated they were not aware of the contents of the article, nor the submission process, because the email address provided on submission was not their email address. The authors did not state explicitly whether they agree to this retraction.


Figures 1A, 2C, 6B. The authors failed to provide a satisfactory explanation during the investigation, which was conducted in accordance with Frontiers’ policies. Given the concerns about the validity of the data, and the lack of raw data, the editors no longer have confidence in the findings presented in the article.Following publication, concerns were raised regarding the integrity of the images in the published figures. Image duplication concerns were identified in This retraction was approved by the Chief Editors of Frontiers in Pharmacology and the Chief Executive Editor of Frontiers. The 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.


The authors wish to point out an inadvertent error in


Title.There was a spelling mistake in the original publication . A corre“Applicability of International Autoimmune Hepatitis Group (IAIHG) Scoring System for Autoimmune Hepatitis in Pediatrics”Simple Summary.There was a spelling mistake in the original publication . A corre“We found liver biopsies were an essential component of the IAIHG scoring system and that specific liver biopsy features including interface hepatitis and predominant plasma cells were significantly associated with AIH.”Discussion, the newly added sentence appears below.There was a missing part in the original publication . A corre“However, a detailed look at the data published from many studies suggested that these two features carry a lower sensitivity due to difficulties in being identified or determined by light microscopy. Further study using immunostaining of CD8 T cells, along with confocal or electron microscopy, may help to assess the importance of emperipolesis.”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 graph second from the top, MAGE-A1 LTQ/A1 is indicated in black, but instead this should be MAGE-A1 KVL/A2.This error has been corrected in the figure online, and the authors apologize for any confusion this may have caused.


Error in FigureDue to problems with The authors wish to replace The authors wish to replace The authors 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. 2022;132(18):e161400. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI161400Original citation: J Clin Invest. 2023;133(11):e172059. https://doi.org/10.1172/JCI172059Citation for this corrigendum: After the publication of this paper, the authors became aware of errors in data analysis due to an issue with the barcoding of samples that caused some samples to be excluded. The authors have repeated all of the analysis and corrected Supplemental Figures 5, 6, and 9. The supplemental file has been updated online.The authors regret the errors.


Correction: Reproductive Health (2023) 20:4 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12978-022-01559-8After publication of this article , the autThis study was supported by ICES, which is funded by an annual grant from the Ontario Ministry of Health (MOH) and the Ministry of Long-Term Care (MLTC). Parts of this material are based on data and information compiled and provided by the MOH. The analyses, conclusions, opinions, and statements expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not reflect those of the funding or data sources; no endorsement is intended or should be inferred. Parts of this material are based on data and information provided by Ontario Health (OH). The opinions, results, view, and conclusions reported in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of OH. No endorsement by OH is intended or should be inferred. Parts of this material are based on data and information compiled and provided by CIHI. The analyses, conclusions, opinions and statements expressed herein are solely those of the authors and do not reflect those of the funding or data sources; no endorsement is intended or should be inferred. Parts or whole of this material are based on data and/or information compiled and provided by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC). However, the analyses, conclusions, opinions and statements expressed in the material are those of the author(s), and not necessarily those of IRCC. The authors would like to acknowledge Wenbin Li at ICES Queen’s for assistance with additional statistical analysis.The original article  has been


Correction to: Circular Economy and Sustainabilityhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s43615-023-00265-2The original article has been corrected as the names of the last two authors were mistyped. The names of the last two authors were corrected from Mohammad Treiblmaier and Mohamad Iranmanesh to Horst Treiblmaier and Mohammad Iranmanesh


Retraction Note: Cellular Oncology (2021) 44:1425–143710.1007/s13402-021-00651-8The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article at the authors’ request. After publication, the authors contacted the journal requesting a correction to Figs. 4 and 5 due to image overlap with their other article, specifically:Figure 4d 48 h IFIT1 image appears highly similar to Fig. 7f Huh7 48 h control in [Figure 5c Aspc-1 si-IFIT1 image appears highly similar to Fig. 7h Huh7 si-METTL18 in [Figure 5a and c Aspc-1 si-IFIT1 images appear to overlap.Further checks by the Publisher found several additional cases of image overlap in Figs. 2, 4 and 5, as well as other similarities between Figs. 4 and 7 in this article and Fig. 7 in . The autThe authors have been invited to resubmit a corrected version of the article for peer review.All authors agree to this retraction.


After careful investigation by the authors, it has been determined that the specimens shown are identical, albeit with a slight difference in the region of interest. The authors sincerely regret this oversight and would like to emphasize that it was a genuine error and in no way intentional. The authors have carefully reviewed their stored data and experimental notebooks, and in the process, it was found that the image of Gdnf-KO #2 had been used incorrectly. Due to the age of the article, the original figure cannot be replaced, but the revised figure is shown below for readers. This revised Figure 5 replaces the original, incorrect image of Gdnf-KO #2 with the correct one. The authors would like to assure readers that this error does not affect the conclusions of the study. They deeply regret any confusion this may have caused and appreciate the understanding of the scientific community.


Trianthema portulacastrum Linn. on dermal wounds via removal of oxidative stress and inflammation’ by Ekta Yadav et al., RSC Adv., 2018, 8, 21621–21635, https://doi.org/10.1039/C8RA03500H.Correction and removal of expression of concern for ‘Ameliorative effect of biofabricated ZnO nanoparticles of  The authors regret that there was an error in This correction supersedes the information provided in the Expression of Concern related to this article.The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.


Open Biol.10, 190286. (Published online 13 May 2020). (doi:10.1098/rsob.190286)Following the publication of ‘Long non-coding RNA LINC00346 contributes to cisplatin resistance in nasopharyngeal carcinoma by repressing miR-342-5p’, the Editorial team have concerns regarding the validity of the data used in this study.We are issuing an expression of concern here and investigating this as a matter of urgency; we will notify readers as to the results of our investigation as soon as possible.


CA and SE organized the database. CA, MD, and MoM performed the statistical analysis. CrC wrote the first draft of the manuscript. CrC, MD, CG, and MiM wrote sections of the manuscript. MD, CG, and MiM collected data. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version”.The correct spelling is CCr, GC, RL, VB, and CCo contributed to conception and design of the study. AC and ES organized the database. AC, DM, and MMo performed the statistical analysis. CCr wrote the first draft of the manuscript. CCr, DM, GC, and MMi wrote sections of the manuscript. DM, GC, and MMi collected data. All authors contributed to manuscript revision, read, and approved the submitted version.In the published article, author names were incorrectly written in Conflict of interest section as “CA has received research grants from Almirall, research grants from ECTRIMS-MAGNIMS and honoraria from Almirall, Biogen, Roche Sanofi-Genzyme and Novartis. MoM has received research grants from ECTRIMS-MAGNIMS, UK MS Society, and Merck; and honoraria from Biogen, Merck, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. The remaining 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”.The correct spelling is AC has received research grants from Almirall, research grants from ECTRIMS-MAGNIMS and honoraria from Almirall, Biogen, Roche Sanofi-Genzyme and Novartis. MMo has received research grants from ECTRIMS-MAGNIMS, UK MS Society, and Merck; and honoraria from Biogen, Merck, Roche, and Sanofi-Genzyme. The remaining 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.The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in anyway. The original article has been updated.