This article is mentioned in:

Oncol Lett 18: [Related article:] 814-821, 2019; DOI: 10.3892/ol.2019.10342

Subsequently to the publication of this article, the authors have realized that the article contained several errors that were not corrected. First, an error was introduced into Fig. 1; essentially, the mutation of T>C at position 794 of the nucleotide sequence of the wild-type MYD88 plasmid was not portrayed correctly (as cytosine) in panel (B). In addition, the sequencing result in the lowest panel of Fig. 4 shows the wild-type sequence, and therefore the nucleotide at position 794 should have been presented as T, not as C. Corrected versions of Figs. 1 and 4 are shown opposite.

Figure 1. Sequencing result of two plasmids. (A) Sequence of the WT MYD88 plasmid. There is no mutation at position 794 (arrow). (B) Sequence of the mutant MYD88 plasmid pCMV-MYD88-L265P-Mu. There is a mutation at position 794 T>C (arrow). MYD88, myeloid differentiation primary response 88; WT, wild-type; Mu, mutated.

Figure 4. Validation and sensitivity testing for direct sequencing. Direct sequencing results of negative control template at serial dilutions (100, 50, 20, 10, 5, 1 and 0%) with positive control. The sensitivity for direct sequencing was indicated to be 10%. Arrows indicate the mutation site. WT, wild-type; MU, mutated.

Otherwise, textual errors remained in the paper. Some textual errors were featured in the subsection of the Materials and methods entitled “Sensitivity evaluation by HRM assay and direct sequencing”, in the final paragraph in the right-hand column of p. 816. The sentence commencing 6 lines from the bottom of the page should have read as: “The melting curve obtained using 1% negative control template clearly differed from the positive template.” (“negative control” instead of “mutated”, and “positive” instead of “negative”). The subsequent sentence should have read as: “However, the mutation was detectable by direct sequencing when the negative control template frequency was >10% (Fig. 4).” (“negative control template” instead of “mutant”). Finally, some errors remained uncorrected in the legend for Fig. 4 on p. 819. The first sentence in the legend should have read as follows: “Direct sequencing results of negative control template at serial dilutions (100, 50, 20, 10, 5, 1 and 0%) with positive control.” (“negative control template” instead of “MYD88 p.L265P mutations”, and “positive” instead of “negative”).

The authors and the Editor apologize to the readership of the Journal for any inconvenience caused.