There was an error published in Dis. Model. Mech. 6, 489-502.

Due to a technical error with the image analysis software, the published speed unit of peroxisome movement is incorrect. The stated peroxisome speed unit (µm/second) should be changed to µm/2 seconds in two different places in the paper: (1) twice in the Results section ‘Dynamics of peroxisome movement’, and (2) the x-axis of Fig. 5 (the legend remains the same). The correct text and figure is shown below. This change does not alter any conclusions of the paper, which was a comparison of cells from patients and controls.

(1) The mean peroxisome speed in patient cells was 93% slower than in control cells (control, 0.172±0.001 μm/2 seconds; patient, 0.160±0.001 μm/2 seconds; t=9.19, d.f.= 24,398, P<0.0001).

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. (2) Fig. 5. Peroxisome speeds were slower in patient and control cells. Frequency distributions of peroxisomes in different speed classes are shown for control cells (open bars; n=7 individuals, 10 cells per individual) and patient cells (filled bars; n=6 individuals, 10 cells per individual). Peroxisome speeds were quantified every 2 seconds for 2 minutes and grouped in speed classes expressed as the percentage of peroxisomes in each speed class as a percentage of the total number of peroxisomes for each group (control cells, n=13,871 peroxisomes; patient cells, 10,529 peroxisomes).
View largeDownload slide

(2) Fig. 5. Peroxisome speeds were slower in patient and control cells. Frequency distributions of peroxisomes in different speed classes are shown for control cells (open bars; n=7 individuals, 10 cells per individual) and patient cells (filled bars; n=6 individuals, 10 cells per individual). Peroxisome speeds were quantified every 2 seconds for 2 minutes and grouped in speed classes expressed as the percentage of peroxisomes in each speed class as a percentage of the total number of peroxisomes for each group (control cells, n=13,871 peroxisomes; patient cells, 10,529 peroxisomes).

Fig. 5.
Fig. 5. (2) Fig. 5. Peroxisome speeds were slower in patient and control cells. Frequency distributions of peroxisomes in different speed classes are shown for control cells (open bars; n=7 individuals, 10 cells per individual) and patient cells (filled bars; n=6 individuals, 10 cells per individual). Peroxisome speeds were quantified every 2 seconds for 2 minutes and grouped in speed classes expressed as the percentage of peroxisomes in each speed class as a percentage of the total number of peroxisomes for each group (control cells, n=13,871 peroxisomes; patient cells, 10,529 peroxisomes).
View largeDownload slide

(2) Fig. 5. Peroxisome speeds were slower in patient and control cells. Frequency distributions of peroxisomes in different speed classes are shown for control cells (open bars; n=7 individuals, 10 cells per individual) and patient cells (filled bars; n=6 individuals, 10 cells per individual). Peroxisome speeds were quantified every 2 seconds for 2 minutes and grouped in speed classes expressed as the percentage of peroxisomes in each speed class as a percentage of the total number of peroxisomes for each group (control cells, n=13,871 peroxisomes; patient cells, 10,529 peroxisomes).

The authors apologise to the readers for any confusion that this error might have caused.

View Original Article
© 2015. Published by The Company of Biologists Ltd
2015
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.