Fig 2 is incorrect. Specifically, Fig 2A, which depicts the different geometric configurations discussed in the article, plots the axis defining the parameter hr in reverse and shows the examples of the two extreme “film positions” (marked as hr = 0 and hr = 1 in panel (A)) in the opposite order. The authors have provided a corrected version here.
Fig 2. Schematic of the simulated spatial arrangements.
(A) Illustrations of the film spatial arrangement, at three relative positions (hr = 0, 0.5 and 1). The direction of the incoming radiation is indicated by the arrow. (B) Illustration of the lattice spatial arrangement for three configurations: sphere, packed sphere and ghost.
As a result, in the third paragraph of the subsection “Spatial arrangement of melanin affects shielding effectiveness” in the “Results”, the phrase reading “We repeated the simulations for the aforementioned values of ρA for two configurations: melanin ghosts and film with hr = 0.” should be corrected to “We repeated the simulations for the aforementioned values of ρA for two configurations: melanin ghosts and film with hr = 1.”.
Reference
- 1.Vasileiou T, Summerer L (2020) A biomimetic approach to shielding from ionizing radiation: The case of melanized fungi. PLoS ONE 15(4): e0229921. 10.1371/journal.pone.0229921 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

