Notice of Republication
Following publication of this article [1], concerns were raised about regions of similarity between the images of the indirect immunofluorescence assay (IFA) microscope slides for detection of hantavirus-specific antibodies shown in Fig 1 and images of IFA slides for detection of different antibodies published in other articles [2–4]. The authors clarify that the images in Fig 1 were digitally created using image editing software to combine images of a slide background, reaction fields and assay labels. The images in Fig 1 are for illustrative purposes only, to support understanding of slide configuration and methodology. Fig 1 does not contribute to the results data or scientific conclusions of the study.
Fig 1. Immunofluorescence microscope slides for the multiparametric detection of hantavirus-specific antibodies.
A microscope slide has ten reaction fields, each of which contains a biochip mosaic, allowing ten samples or sample dilutions to be incubated simultaneously with the same range of substrates. Due to identical incubation protocols, IgG and IgM testing can be performed on different reactions fields of the same slide using the respective secondary antibody conjugate. Hantavirus Mosaic 1 comprises mosaics of six biochips coated with Hantaan virus (HTNV)-, Puumala virus (PUUV)-, Seoul virus (SEOV)-, Sin Nombre virus (SNV)-, Dobrava virus (DOBV)- and Saaremaa virus (SAAV)-infected cells (-IC). Hantavirus Mosaic 3 consists of mosaics of two biochips coated with Sin Nombre virus (SNV)- and Andes virus (ANDV)-IC.
In light of concerns that the originally published Fig 1 includes previously published image elements that are not licensed for reproduction and distribution under the terms of the CC-BY license, the original article was republished on October 22, 2020, with a revised Fig 1 in which slide configuration is shown as a schematic diagram. Please download this article again to view the correct version. The revised Fig 1 is provided here for reference.
The underlying data for this article is available upon request from the corresponding author.
References
- 1.Lederer S, Lattwein E, Hanke M, Sonnenberg K, Stoecker W, Lundkvist Å, et al. (2013) Indirect Immunofluorescence Assay for the Simultaneous Detection of Antibodies against Clinically Important Old and New World Hantaviruses. PLoS Negl Trop Dis 7(4): e2157 10.1371/journal.pntd.0002157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Schlumberger W, Hornig N, Lange S, Probst C, Komorowski L, et al. (2013) Differential diagnosis of membranous nephropathy with autoantibodies to phospholipase A2 receptor 1. Autoimmun Rev. 2014;13:108–113. 10.1016/j.autrev.2013.09.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Niedrig M, Kürsteiner O, Herzog C, Sonnenberg K. Evaluation of an indirect immunofluorescence assay for detection of immunoglobulin M (IgM) and IgG antibodies against yellow fever virus. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2008;15(2):177–181. 10.1128/CVI.00078-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Mastroianni-Kirsztajn G, Hornig N and Schlumberger W (2015) Autoantibodies in renal diseases–clinical significance and recent developments in serological detection. Front. Immunol. 6:221 10.3389/fimmu.2015.00221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]