Exp Ther Med 17:[Related article:] 91–98, 2019; DOI:
10.3892/etm.2018.6955
Following the publication of the above paper, an
interested reader has drawn to the Editor’s attention a number of
inconsistences reported in the text of the article. First, the
Abstract appeared to contradict with what was reported in the
Results text and Fig. 5 on p. 96, in the sense that, where the
Abstract stated that: “Overexpression of TBL1XR1 significantly
increased E-cadherin protein expression, whilst snail family
transcriptional repressor 1 (SNAI1), zinc finger E-box binding
homebox 1 (ZEB1), p-Smad2/3, Smad2 and Smad3 protein expression
were significantly reduced, compared with the control group.”, the
opposite regulatory trends were reported in the Results section and
in Fig. 5. Secondly, the description of the experiments in the
legend for Fig. 3D did not correlate with what was shown in the
figure; moreover, the text featured here appeared to have been
duplicated from the text featured in the legend for Fig. 3B.
Thirdly, the antibody sources/catalogue information appeared to be
internally inconsistent in the Materials and methods section; for
example, several antibodies with catalogue numbers in the
“abxxxx” format (a numbering convention specific to Abcam)
were simultaneously attributed to other suppliers. Fourthy (and
finally), an inconsistent description of error bars (SEM vs. SD)
was noted in the legends of Figs. 1, 2, 3, and 5.
The authors have revisited the text of their paper,
and recognize that a number of errors went uncorrected before the
paper was published. First, the Abstract reported the
abovementioned results incorrectly (where the description of the
findings in the Results section, and the data in Fig. 5 itself,
were correct). The affected text in the Abstract should have read
as follows: “Overexpression of TBL1XR1 significantly decreased
E-cadherin protein expression, whilst snail family transcriptional
repressor 1 (SNAI1), zinc finger E-box binding homebox 1 (ZEB1),
p-Smad2/3, Smad2 and Smad3 protein expression were significantly
increased, compared with the control group.” Note that this
correction is limited to the wording in the Abstract, and does not
affect any experimental data, data interpretation or the overall
conclusions of the study.
Secondly, the text describing the experiments for
Fig. 3D in the legend for Fig. 3 was inadvertently duplicated from
the text for Fig. 3B during manuscript preparation (the
experimental data and figure itself are correct, as shown). The
text for Fig. 3D in the Fig. 3 legend should have read as follows:
“(D) Effects of TBL1XR1 knockdown on H1703 cell invasion were
determined using the Transwell invasion assay with chambers
precoated with Matrigel® (magnification, x200).”
Thirdly, the original manuscript contained
inaccuracies in the reporting of the catalogue numbers, and their
formatting. The Materials and methods section has now been
thoroughly corrected to ensure that each antibody is accurately
matched with its corresponding supplier and catalogue number, and
the antibody information has been standardized in the revised
manuscript. Note that these corrections only involve the
documentation of reagents, and do not affect the experimental
procedures, data or conclusions presented in this study. The
details for the antibodies should have been written in the
Materials and methods section as follows: “Anti-GAPDH (cat. no.
sc-32233; Santa Cruz Biotechnology, Inc., Dallas, TX, USA),
anti-snail family transcriptional repressor 1 (SNAI1; cat. no.
3879), anti-zinc finger E-box binding homeobox 1 (ZEB1; cat. no.
3396), anti-E-cadherin (cat. no. 3195), anti-mothers against
decapentaplegic homolog 2 (Smad2; cat. no. 5339), anti-Smad3 (cat.
no. 9523), and anti-phosphorylated (p)-Smad2/3 (cat. no. 8828; all
Cell Signaling Technology, Inc., Danvers, MA, USA).”
Finally, the description of the error bars was
accurately observed to have been inconsistent, comparing between
the “Statistical Analysis” section and the figure legends.
The error bars shown in all figures represented standard deviation;
accordingly, the “Statistical Analysis”section has been
revised to state that all quantitative data are presented as the
mean ± standard deviation, ensuring consistency throughout the
manuscript. The corrected “Statistical Analysis” section (on
p. 93, left-hand column) should therefore have read as follows:
“...all data [were] expressed as the mean ± standard
deviation.”
The authors are grateful to the Editor of
Experimental and Therapeutic Medicine for allowing them this
opportunity to publish a Corrigendum, and all the authors agree
with its publication. The authors also thank the reader for drawing
these anomalies and inconsistencies to their attention, and
apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.
