Following a careful review of the original in vivo bioluminescence imaging files and figure-assembly records, we identified an error in Figure c. During final figure preparation, the image corresponding to the day 3 time point of the U87 model was incorrectly labeled, and as a result the wrong image was inserted into the assembled panel.
6.
PL-loaded hydrogel scaffolds treat glioblastoma multiforme in vivo. (a) Experiment design showing the development of a biocompatible, PL-loaded hydrogel suitable for local treatment of GBM. Experiment flow: U251 or U87-MG cells were injected intracranially (n = 5 per group). Eight days later, engraftment was confirmed with bioluminescent imaging. On day 9, PL-loaded or unloaded hydrogels were implanted. Tumor growth was assessed at regular intervals by using bioluminescent imaging. (b) Histological image of a full mouse brain showing the hydrogel implant. (c) Bioluminescent images of U251 and U87-MG xenograft mice treated with PL-loaded hydrogel (50 mg/kg) or unloaded hydrogel (control). Data show that PL treatment successfully reduces tumor volume over a period of 21 days relative to the control, in which the tumor grows exponentially, on both models of GBM. Tumor burden in mice treated with PL-loaded or unloaded hydrogel as measured by luciferase activity for (f) U251 and (g) U87-MG models. Data are expressed as luciferase intensity (ROI on tumor site) as an indication of average tumor load in the control group at each time point and represent group mean ± SEM. Data show a significant tumor burden difference between both groups (p ≤ 0.01, n = 5, Mann–Whitney test) for (f) U251 and (g) U87-MG models. The Kaplan–Meier survival curve shows that mice treated with PL-loaded hydrogels have significantly increased survival (p ≤ 0.001, log-rank Mantel–Cox test) relative to the control group for (h) U251 and (i) U87-MG models. The experiment cutoff criteria included an increase in tumor size of around 500% relative to the original size measured for each mouse prior to hydrogel implantation.
We have now rechecked the original imaging files, confirmed the correct day 3 image for the U87 model, and prepared a revised version of Figure c in which the affected panel has been replaced. The correction is limited to this representative in vivo image in panel c. The quantitative ROI analyses, survival curves, statistical analyses, results, interpretation, and conclusions of the study remain unchanged.
We were unable to contact all of the authors; as a result, the following authors did not participate in the Correction process: Florian Sieglitz, Maike Langini, Rafael Roque, Yuhang Liu, and Seungil Han.
We sincerely regret this error and apologize for the oversight and any inconvenience it may have caused.