[Corrigendum] Protective effects of baicalin on rabbit articular chondrocytes in vitro

• Authors:
  • Xianyuan Huang
  • Huayu Wu
  • Liqin Wang
  • Li Zheng
  • Jinmin Zhao

• View Affiliations

  
  Affiliations: Guangxi Engineering Center in Biomedical Materials for Tissue and Organ Regeneration, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi 530021, P.R. China, Department of Cell Biology and Genetics, School of Premedical Sciences, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi 530021, P.R. China, Department of Radiology, The First Affiliated Hospital, Sun Yat‑Sen University, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510275, P.R. China
• Published online on: February 8, 2021     https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2021.9768
• Article Number: 337

• Copyright : © Huang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License [CC BY 4.0].

Article

Exp Ther Med 13:[Related article:] 1267–1274, 2017; DOI: 10.3892/etm.2017.4116

Subsequently to the publication of the above article, the authors have realized that both Figs. 3 and 5 contained some data panels that were inadvertently selected erroneously. Specifically, in Fig. 3, the 0.625 μmol/l and 2.5 μmol/l panels for the Day 4 data were selected incorrectly, whereas the Control panels for the Day 2 and Day 4 experiments, and also the 0.625 μmol/l Day 4 panel, in Fig. 5 were shown incorrectly.

Figure 3 Fluorescein diacetate/propidium iodide staining images indicating the live (green) and dead (red) chondrocytes cultured in vitro with 0 (control), 0.625, 1.25 and 2.5 μmol/l baicalin for 2, 4 and 6 days (magnification, ×40; scale bar, 200 μm).

Figure 5 Safranin O staining demonstrating in vitro extracellular matrix synthesis by chondrocytes (seeding density, 2×104/ml) cultured with 0 (Control), 0.625, 1.25 and 2.5 μmol/l baicalin for 2, 4 and 6 days (magnification, ×200; scale bar, 100 μm).

The revised versions of Figs. 3 and 5 containing the corrected data are shown on the next page. All the authors agree to this Corrigendum; also note that these errors did not affect the overall conclusions reported in the paper. The authors regret these errors, and apologize for any confusion that these mistakes have caused.