[Corrigendum] Inhibitory activity of apogossypol in human prostate cancer in vitro and in vivo
- Wenhua Zhan
- Xingbin Hu
- Jing Yi
- Qunxing An
- Xiaofeng Huang
- Published online on: February 13, 2018 https://doi.org/10.3892/mmr.2018.8571
Copyright: © Zhan et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.
Mol Med Rep 11: [Related article:] 4142-4148, 2015; DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2015.3326
An interested reader drew to the attention of the Editorial Board of Molecular Medicine Reports that certain data featured in the above paper had been published in 2014 in the same journal, in an article featuring several of the same authors [Zhang X, Hu X, Mu S, Zhan Y, An Q, Liu Z and Huang X: “Apogossypolone inhibits the proliferation of LNCaP cells in vitro and in vivo”, Mol Med Rep 10: 1184-1194, 2014]. Specifically, data in Fig. 2A of the above paper (the Apogossypol, 15 µmol/l data panel) had appeared in Fig. 3B, c in the 2014 paper.
Apogossypol induces apoptosis in LNCaP cells. (A) LNCaP cells were incubated with either apogossypol or gossypol at the indicated concentrations, or DMSO, for 48 h. Next, Hoechst 33258 staining was performed to detect apoptotic cells (cyan), while the nuclei in normal cells were stained with DAPI (blue) (magnification, ×400). (B) Statistical analysis of apoptotic cells with either apogossypol or gossypol. The histogram represents the percentage of apoptotic cells among 200 cells within a high-power field. Values are expressed as the mean ± standard deviation from three independent experiments. **P<0.01 compared with the gossypol-treated group. HPF, high-power field; DAPI, 4’,6-diamidino-2-phenylindole; DMSO, dimethylsulfoxide.
The authors responded to our original enquiry asking for an explanation concerning the data that had been shared between these papers, and confirmed that the inclusion of the same data in the two papers had occurred in error. Subsequently, they were able to identify the proper data for the affected figure of the above paper, and a corrected version of Fig. 2 is printed opposite. We apologize to the readership of the Journal for any inconvenience caused.