Oncol Lett 17: [Related article:] 3751-3764, 2019; DOI:
10.3892/ol.2019.10041
Subsequently to the publication of the above paper,
an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that they had
noticed potential errors/discrepancies with the descriptions of the
data as reported in Table I and Fig. 1. Specifically, in Table I,
the authors had stated: “A total of 424 DEGs were identified from
the GSE28735 dataset, including 159 upregulated genes and 265
downregulated genes in PDAC tissues, compared to adjacent non-tumor
tissue samples.” However, the reader considered that genes such as
LAMC2, GALNT5, TSPAN1, CTSE and
POSTN, which were labeled as “Downregulated” genes in Table
I have generally been reported to be significantly upregulated in
PDAC, and requested that the authors check this.
In response to the question raised, the authors
re-analyzed their original data, and found that a clerical error
had been made in terms of the data annotation. Concerning Table I,
in the body of the table, the genes listed as “Up-downregulated”
should have been labeled as “Down-regulated” genes, and vice
versa; in addition, the designation of up- and down-regulated
genes in the Table legend also needed to be changed. A corrected
version of Table I, showing changes highlighted in bold, is shown
on the next page.
Furthermore, the following changes should be noted
for the text of the article:
In the Results section on p. 3752, the second and
third sentences of the first paragraph should have read as follows:
“A total of 424 DEGs were identified from GSE28735, including
159 downregulated and 265 upregulated genes (Table I). The
heat map of DEG expression, presenting the top 50 downregulated
and 50 upregulated genes was constructed using the web-based
tool Morpheus (Fig. 1).
The first sentence of the PPI and modular
analysis in pancreatic cancer subsection of the Results on the
same page should have read as follows: “Using the STRING online
database and Cytoscape software analysis, a total of 386 DEGs
(143 downregulated and 243 upregulated genes) of the 424
commonly altered DEGs...”.
The final two sentences of this subsection should
have read as follows: “Among the downregulated DEGs, a total
of 143 DEGs were filtered into the DEG PPI network complex
including 143 nodes and 263 edges (Fig. 2B), which were mainly
associated with ‘digestion’, ‘serine-type peptidase activity’ and
the ‘extracellular region’ (Table V). Among the upregulated
DEGs, a total of 143 DEGs were filtered into the DEGs PPI network
complex including 243 nodes and 497 edges (Fig. 2C), which were
mainly associated with ‘ECM organization’, ‘ECM structural
constituents’ and the ‘extracellular region’ (Table VI).”
On p. 3756, left-hand column, the sentences at the
beginning of the new paragraph of the Discussion should have read
as follows: “Furthermore, KEGG pathway analysis indicated that the
downregulated DEGs were involved in pancreatic secretion
pathways and protein and lipid digestion and absorption pathways.
Existing studies revealed that metabolic change is considered one
of the characteristics of cancer, especially the dysfunction of
pancreatic secretion (22,11). In pancreatic cancer, metabolic
changes are prominent in protein and lipid digestion and absorption
pathways (23). The up-regulated DEGs were associated with
‘ECM-receptor interaction’, ‘focal adhesion’ and the ‘PI3K-Akt
signaling’ pathways.”
On p. 3761, left-hand column, the sentence at the
start of the sixth paragraph of the Discussion should have read as
follows: “For the downregulated DEGs, module analysis of the
PPI network revealed that they were associated with...”.
Also on p. 3761, the right-hand column, the sentence
at the start of the seventh paragraph of the Discussion should have
read as follows: “The upregulated DEGs were associated with
ECM-receptor interactions, focal adhesion and the PI3K-Akt
signaling pathway (46).”
The title and legend for Fig. 2 should have read as
follows: “Figure 2. DEGs PPI network complex in PDAC. (A) All 386
DEG interaction networks. (B) The downregulated DEG interaction
network. (C) The upregulated DEG interaction network.”
Finally, the titles of Tables II, III, V and VI
should have read as follows:
Table II. GO analysis of downregulated DEGs
associated with PDAC.
Table III. GO analysis of upregulated DEGs
associated with PDAC.
Table V. The enriched pathways of downregulated
DEGs PPI network in PDAC.
Table VI. The enriched pathways of upregulated
DEGs PPI network in PDAC.
The authors regret the clerical errors that were
made during the writing of this paper, and express their thanks to
the reader who drew this matter to their attention. They are also
grateful to the editor of Oncology Letters for allowing them
the opportunity to publish this Corrigendum. All the authors agree
with the publication of this corrigendum; furthermore, they
apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused.
