In the published article, there was an error in the legend for Figure 7 , panel B as published. The labeling of the lanes in the immunoblots was incorrect.
Figure 7.
Sfn does not affect Y105 phosphorylation but glutathionylation of PKM2 in M1 (LPS) macrophages. iBMDM were pretreated with DMSO or the indicated concentrations of Sfn for 30 min prior to stimulation with LPS for 6 h. (A) Total cell lysates were immunoblotted for p(Y105), total PKM2, and actin as a loading control. Representative blots of at least three independent experiments are depicted. Bar graphs represent compiled densitometric data. (B) Macrophages were pretreated with Sfn (10 μM) or the GSH donor glutathioneethylester (GSEE) before LPS was added for another 6 h. Proteins were harvested under nonreducing conditions. Lysates (input) or immunoprecipitates obtained with an antibody specific for protein-bound glutathione (GSS-X) were subjected to immunoblot analysis for PKM2. Representative blots of three independent experiments with consistent results are depicted.
The corrected legend appears below.
“Sfn does not affect Y105 phosphorylation but glutathionylation of PKM2 in M1 (LPS) macrophages. iBMDM were pretreated with DMSO or the indicated concentrations of Sfn for 30 min prior to stimulation with LPS for 6 h. (A) Total cell lysates were immunoblotted for p(Y105), total PKM2, and actin as a loading control. Representative blots of at least three independent experiments are depicted. Bar graphs represent compiled densitometric data. (B) Macrophages were pretreated with Sfn (10 µM) or the GSH donor glutathione-ethylester (GSEE) before LPS was added for another 6 h. Proteins were harvested under nonreducing conditions. Lysates (input) or immunoprecipitates obtained with an antibody specific for protein-bound glutathione (GSS-X) were subjected to immunoblot analysis for PKM2. Representative blots of three independent experiments with consistent results are depicted.”
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
In the published article, there was an error in Figure 7 , panel B as published. The labeling of the lanes in the immunoblots was incorrect. The corrected Figure 7 appears below.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.