Oncol Lett 14: 5959-5965, 2017; DOI: 10.3892/ol.2017.6940
Following the publication of this article, the authors have realized that, owing to inadvertent errors during the preparation and revision of the manuscript, images were misplaced and mislabeled in Fig. 2B, and Table I contained erroneous information. Specifically, the ‘X-ray’ panel featured in Fig. 2B was selected incorrectly.
Figure 2.
COX 2 inhibition increases the sensitivity of lung cancer cells to X-ray radiation. (A) Total RNA extract was amplified by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and separated by agarose gel electrophoresis. Upper and lower lanes are COX-2 and β-actin, respectively. (B) Nuclear morphology of A549 cells treated with DMSO, X-rays, celecoxib or celecoxib plus X-rays. Nucleic changes, including anachromasis, pyknosis and karyorrhexis are indicated by the white arrows. Nuclei were stained with Hoechst 33258; image magnification, ×400. (C) A549 cells were irradiated with various doses of X-ray radiation, then treated with/without 200 μM celecoxib for three days. The growth inhibition curve is presented. Data are presented as the mean and standard error of five replicates. ****P<0.0001, two-way ANOVA. (D) Growth inhibition of A549 cells under indicated treatment. Data were pooled from three parallels and are presented as the mean ± standard deviation. Survival ratio at day 5 was subjected to statistical analysis. ****P<0.0001, two-way ANOVA. COX-2, cyclooxygenase-2; DMSO, dimethyl sulfoxide; ANOVA, analysis of variance.
Table I.
Cell cycle analysis for each experimental group.
| Group | Celexcoxib, µM | X-ray, Gy | G0/G1, %a | S, %a | G2/M, %a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 0 | 0 | 56.86±1.92 | 27.98±2.20 | 15.16±0.96 |
| Celecoxib | 50 | 0 | 74.38±2.16 | 14.67±1.75 | 10.95±0.48 |
| 100 | 0 | 49.99±0.90 | 21.41±0.87 | 28.60±0.50 | |
| Radiation | 0 | 6 | 54.62±1.49 | 18.55±0.93 | 26.83±0.77 |
| Combination treatment | 50 | 6 | 36.00±1.04 | 11.74±0.93 | 52.27±1.53 |
| 100 | 6 | 29.20±0.34 | 12.60±0.10 | 58.20±0.36 |
Data presented as mean ± standard deviation.
The corrected versions of Table I and Fig. 2, featuring all the correct data panels in Fig. 2B, are shown on the next page. These errors did not have an impact on the description, interpretation, or the original conclusions of the manuscript. The authors regret that these errors were allowed to enter into the published version of this article, and apologize to the readership for the inconvenience caused.