Correction: RvE1 attenuates polymicrobial sepsis-induced cardiac dysfunction and enhances bacterial clearance

There was a mistake in Figure 3A as published. The previous image of Figure 3A (MHCII vs. SSC-A scatter plot) was selected from a mouse in the 24-hour post-CLP group that had received RvE1 treatment, as we initially understood that RvE1-treated mice were also subjected to 24-hour CLP. However, to avoid any further confusion, we have now replaced this scatter plot with an image from a mouse subjected to CLP without RvE1 treatment. This change more accurately reflects the legend of Figure 3A : “(A) Flow cytometry gating strategy of mouse peritoneal immune cells 24 h post-CLP”. The corrected Figure 3 and its caption appear below.

Figure 3.

RvE1 treatment enhances MHC II- macrophage recruitment in peritoneal cavity. Mice underwent CLP surgery. One hour after CLP, mice were treated with either RvE1 (1 μg/mouse i.v.) or vehicle (100 μl PBS, 0.1% Ethanol). (A) Flow cytometry gating strategy of mouse peritoneal immune cells 24 h post-CLP. (B) Scattergrams illustrating monocyte/macrophage (identified as Ly6G^-CD64⁺) and neutrophil (identified as Ly6G⁺CD64^-) positive events in peritoneal lavages from CLP mice with vehicle or RvE1 treatment. (C, D) Cumulative data for peritoneal CD64⁺ monocytes/macrophages and Ly6G⁺ neutrophils. (E) Scattergrams illustrating macrophage (identified as CD64^highLy6C^low) and monocyte (identified as CD64^lowLy6C^high) positive events in peritoneal lavages from CLP mice with vehicle or RvE1 treatment. (F, G) Cumulative data for peritoneal CD64^highLy6C^low macrophages and CD64^lowLy6C^high monocytes. (H) Scattergrams illustrating MHC II^- macrophage and MHC II⁺ macrophage positive events in peritoneal lavages from CLP mice with vehicle or RvE1 treatment. (I, J) Cumulative data for peritoneal MHC II^- macrophages and MHC II⁺ macrophages. Data are expressed as mean ± SEM of four mice for vehicle group and five mice for RvE1 treatment group. Data were analyzed by unpaired Student’s t-test. *P< 0.05 versus CLP + Vehicle group.

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.