In the published article, there was an error in Figure 6A , Figure 7C as published. In Figure 6A , the representative photo of TaOE2 was duplicated and used as TaOE3 at 0 day. In Figure 7C , the representative photo of TaOE2 was duplicated and used as TaOE3. The corrected Figure 6A and its caption “ Figure 6 TaPRX-2A overexpression increased the drought tolerance. (A) Phenotype of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic and WT wheat (the cultivar “KN199”) with drought treatment. (B) Survival rates of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (C) shoot length of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (D) Relative water content (RWC), and (E) root length. (F) MDA content of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (G) soluble sugar content of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (H) proline content, and (I) soluble protein content of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing and WT plants. All experiments included three replicates and the data present the mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01 indicate a significant difference compared with WT.” and the corrected Figure 7C along with its caption “ Figure 7 Analysis of ROS scavenging capacity andantioxidant enzymes activity in transgenic wheat lines. (A) Detection of O2 − generation by NBT staining and O2 − content (B). (C) Detection of H2O2 accumulation by DAB staining and H2O2 content (D). (E) Detection of SOD activity in TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (F) Detection of CAT activity in TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (G) Detection of POD activity in TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. All experiments included three replicates and the data present the mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01 indicate a significant difference compared with WT.” appear below.
Figure 6.
TaPRX-2A overexpression increased the drought tolerance. (A) Phenotype of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic and WT wheat (the cultivar “KN199”) with drought treatment. (B) Survival rates of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (C) shoot length of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (D) Relative water content (RWC), and (E) root length. (F) MDA content of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (G) soluble sugar content of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (H) proline content, and (I) soluble protein content of TaPRX-2A-overexpressing and WT plants. All experiments included three replicates and the data present the mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01 indicate a significant difference compared with WT. The “ns” presents “no differences”.
Figure 7.
Analysis of ROS scavenging capacity andantioxidant enzymes activity in transgenic wheat lines. (A) Detection of generation by NBT staining and content (B). (C) Detection of H2O2 accumulation by DAB staining and H2O2 content (D). (E) Detection of SOD activity in TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (F) Detection of CAT activity in TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. (G) Detection of POD activity in TaPRX-2A-overexpressing transgenic lines and WT wheat. All experiments included three replicates and the data present the mean ± SD. *P < 0.05 and **P < 0.01 indicate a significant difference compared with WT. The “ns” presents “no differences”.
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.