There were errors published in J. Cell Sci. (2005) 118, 3623–3630 ().
The authors wish to correct errors in Figs 3A and 4A. In Fig. 4A, the cells in the middle row did not correspond to cells treated with the control peptide as originally labelled, and new panels with the correct cells are now presented. In addition, for clarity, new labels have been added to the top row of Fig. 3A and Fig. 4A to clarify these cells were not treated with peptide. The corrected and original panels are shown below. Both the online full text and PDF versions of the paper have been corrected.
(A) Cells were either left untreated (CTR) or stimulated with forskolin (FK) with or without preincubation for 3 hours with the ERM peptide or with the control peptide. F-actin was stained with TRITC-conjugated phalloidin and visualized by epifluorescence microscopy. Bar, 5 μm.
(A) Cells were either left untreated (CTR) or stimulated with forskolin (FK) with or without preincubation for 3 hours with the ERM peptide or with the control peptide. F-actin was stained with TRITC-conjugated phalloidin and visualized by epifluorescence microscopy. Bar, 5 μm.
(A) Cells were either left untreated (CTR) or stimulated with forskolin (FK) with or without preincubation for 3 hours with the ERM peptide or with the control peptide. F-actin was stained with TRITC-conjugated phalloidin and visualized by epifluorescence microscopy. Bar, 5 μm.
(A) Cells were either left untreated (CTR) or stimulated with forskolin (FK) with or without preincubation for 3 hours with the ERM peptide or with the control peptide. F-actin was stained with TRITC-conjugated phalloidin and visualized by epifluorescence microscopy. Bar, 5 μm.
(A) Cells were either left untreated or stimulated with forskolin in the presence or absence of either ERM peptide or the control peptide. Fluorescence was visualized by epifluorescence microscopy and the xz reconstructions were obtained by deconvolution using Autodeblur software (shown in the insets). Forskolin stimulation caused AQP2 translocation from an intracellular pool to the apical membrane. A similar effect was observed on preincubation with the ERM peptide, while control peptide had no effect on AQP2 cellular localization.
(A) Cells were either left untreated or stimulated with forskolin in the presence or absence of either ERM peptide or the control peptide. Fluorescence was visualized by epifluorescence microscopy and the xz reconstructions were obtained by deconvolution using Autodeblur software (shown in the insets). Forskolin stimulation caused AQP2 translocation from an intracellular pool to the apical membrane. A similar effect was observed on preincubation with the ERM peptide, while control peptide had no effect on AQP2 cellular localization.
(A) Cells were either left untreated or stimulated with forskolin in the presence or absence of either ERM peptide or the control peptide. Fluorescence was visualized by epifluorescence microscopy and the xz reconstructions were obtained by deconvolution using Autodeblur software (shown in the insets). Forskolin stimulation caused AQP2 translocation from an intracellular pool to the apical membrane. A similar effect was observed on preincubation with the ERM peptide, while control peptide had no effect on AQP2 cellular localization.
(A) Cells were either left untreated or stimulated with forskolin in the presence or absence of either ERM peptide or the control peptide. Fluorescence was visualized by epifluorescence microscopy and the xz reconstructions were obtained by deconvolution using Autodeblur software (shown in the insets). Forskolin stimulation caused AQP2 translocation from an intracellular pool to the apical membrane. A similar effect was observed on preincubation with the ERM peptide, while control peptide had no effect on AQP2 cellular localization.
The authors apologise to readers for these errors, which do not impact the results or the conclusions of the article.
