Nature Communications 8: Article number: 15840; DOI: 10.1038/ncomms15840 (2017); Published June 15 2017; Updated November 29 2017
In this Article, two papers are mistakenly listed as having made use of the antibody 14C8 instead of the antibody PPG5/10. In the Discussion section, ref. 45 is incorrectly cited as having shown that the antibody 14C8 works well, and in Fig. 5a, Saunders et al. 2000 is incorrectly depicted as using the 14C8 antibody. Both these papers used antibody PPG5/10 and neither paper includes experiments using 14C8. A corrected version of Fig. 5 appears below as Fig. 1.
Figure 1.
