Skip to main content
eBioMedicine logoLink to eBioMedicine
. 2024 Feb 13;101:105014. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105014

Corrigendum to – “Single oral dose for HIV pre or post-exposure prophylaxis: user desirability and biological efficacy in macaques” [eBioMedicine 58(2020) 102894]

Ivana Massud a, Susan Ruone a, Maria Zlotorzynska b, Richard Haaland a, Patrick Mills c, Mian-er Cong a, Kristen Kelley a, Ryan Johnson a, Angela Holder a, Chuong Dinh a, George Khalil a, Yi Pan a, Colleen F Kelley d, Travis Sanchez b, Walid Heneine a, J Gerardo García-Lerma a,
PMCID: PMC10875212  PMID: 38354533

The authors found that the published version of this article has an error in the Materials and Methods Section. The Methods section lists 10 TCID50 as the dose of SHIV162P3 used in the macaque virus challenge experiments. The correct dose should be listed as 37 TCID50. This unintentional error occurred during manuscript drafting and does not change the interpretation and conclusions of the study as both the treated and untreated animals were exposed to the same virus dose.

The authors also noted an error in panel B of Figure 4 that was related to data input in GraphPad to generate the graph. Specifically, and upon visual inspection, the authors noted that one of the control animals was missing in the graphical representation of the survival curve. This animal was included in the statistical analysis and, therefore, all the reported p values and data interpretation remain unchanged. The original and correct graphs are shown below. The following sections of the text should also be updated accordingly:

Section 3.5:

“The proportion of macaques that became infected in the +2 h (0/5) and +6 h (2/6 infections) groups was significantly lower than the proportion of macaques infected in the untreated control group (10/10 controls infected; p = 0.001 and p = 0.028 respectively)”. This sentence should be changed to:

“The proportion of macaques that became infected in the +2 h (0/5) and +6 h (2/6 infections) groups was significantly lower than the proportion of macaques infected in the untreated control group (10/11 controls infected; p = 0.001 and p = 0.028 respectively)”.

Section 2.5:

“Infection outcome was compared to that seen in 18 untreated macaques (8 exposed to SHIV weekly and used as control for PrEP, and 10 exposed every two weeks and used as controls for PEP)”. This sentence should be changed to:

“Infection outcome was compared to that seen in 19 untreated macaques (8 exposed to SHIV weekly and used as control for PrEP, and 11 exposed every two weeks and used as controls for PEP)”.

The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused by these errors.

Corrected Figure 4b.

Corrected Figure 4b


Articles from eBioMedicine are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES