This work is licensed under a The authors and journal apologise for an error in the above paper, which appeared in volume 25 part 3, pages 367–380. The error relates to the artwork of Fig. 6D on page 375, where the x-axis labels ‘PanNET’ and ‘SINET’ where transposed. The correct Fig. 6 is published in full below:
Figure 6.
Therapeutic sensitivity of GEPNET cell lines and primary cell cultures. (A) Average Z-score representing the effect on cell viability of individual inhibitors to SINETs (GOT1/P-STS) and PanNETs (BON-1/QGP-1), plotted against each other. Groups of inhibitors that are significantly more potent against SINETs or PanNETs are marked by colour. (B) The effect of all MEKi against SINET cells, PanNET cells and non-tumourigenic cells. MEKi are more potent against PanNET cells, compared to SINET and non-tumourigenic cells. (C) Comparing the sensitivity of PanNET and SINET first-passage primary cells to MEKi trametinib. (D) SINET cell lines are more sensitive to HDACi, compared to PanNET cells and non-tumourigenic cells. (E) First-passage primary SINET cells are seemingly more sensitive than primary PanNET cells to the HDACi vorinostat. (B and D) Bars indicate mean effect, error bars s.d. and P values generated from Wilcoxon signed-rank test. (C and E) Dose–response curves represent a mean of n = 3 and the error bars denote standard deviation (s.d.).