Fig. 5.

Identification of αENaC in human endothelial cells (HUVEC; representative experiment). Membrane proteins were separated by SDS-PAGE and stained with Coomassie brilliant blue (lane 1). αENaC was detected by using an anti-αENaC antibody (lanes 2-4). The amount of αENaC in the aldosterone-treated sample (A) is about twice that in the control (C) and about six times higher than that of aldosterone and spironolactone (A+S)-incubated HUVEC. As positive control (PC), we used ENaC-expressing oocytes. The molecular mass standard is given on the left. The upper band in the range of 95 kDa most likely represents a glycosylated form of ENaC.

Fig. 5.

Identification of αENaC in human endothelial cells (HUVEC; representative experiment). Membrane proteins were separated by SDS-PAGE and stained with Coomassie brilliant blue (lane 1). αENaC was detected by using an anti-αENaC antibody (lanes 2-4). The amount of αENaC in the aldosterone-treated sample (A) is about twice that in the control (C) and about six times higher than that of aldosterone and spironolactone (A+S)-incubated HUVEC. As positive control (PC), we used ENaC-expressing oocytes. The molecular mass standard is given on the left. The upper band in the range of 95 kDa most likely represents a glycosylated form of ENaC.

There was an error published in J. Cell Sci. 119, 1926-1932.

A labelling error occurred in Fig. 5, showing a western blot with incorrect kDa values.

The correct Fig. 5 is shown below.

Owing to the labelling error, a sentence in the Results section (1926-1932, right column) refers to the incorrect kDa values: The αENaC antibody recognises a specific band with an apparent molecular mass of about 67 kDa (Fig. 5), which is the same as that reported for the αENaC subunit (Hughey et al., 2003).

The correct sentence is given below:

The αENaC antibody recognises a specific band with an apparent molecular mass of about 95 kDa and a second band of about 55 kDa (Fig. 5), which is the same as that reported for the αENaC subunit (Hughey et al., 2003).

This error appeared in both the print and the online versions of this article.

The authors apologise for this mistake.