Timing of cyclin D1 expression within G1 phase is controlled by Rho
1
CORRIGENDA Timing of cyclin D1 expression within G1 phase is controlled by Rho Catherine F. Welsh, Kristin Roovers, Jessie Villanueva, YunQi Liu, Martin A. Schwartz and Richard K. Assoian Nature Cell Biol. 3, 950–957 (2001); published online 5 October 2001 In the version of the article initially published, two panels contain duplicated bands. The left hand side part of the Cdk4 northern blot in Fig. 2c is identical to the G0 panel of the ERK1/ERK2 western blot. The northern blot data with the correct data is displayed below. The vector control panel of the ERK1/2 western blot of Fig. 3a contains one lane which was duplicated and spliced in an inverted form. The original underlying data was not found, but unmanipulated data from alterna- tive experiments allowing the same conclusions are presented below. In Fig. 1c the 6 h timepoint should have been labelled 3 h (although the excised 6 h timepoint is quantitatively similar). In the northern blots presented in Fig. 1c, there is a splice between lanes 3 and 4 of both blots, which should have been marked; we confirm that the samples were run on the same gel. In Fig. 4b, a darker exposure of the 8 h lane was inserted in the vector blots for cyclin D1 and cdk4. Below is the unmanipulated data. The conclusions are unaltered. In Fig. 5b there is a splice between lanes 5 and 6 of both blots, which should have been marked; we confirm that the samples were run on the same gel. In Fig. 6a, a lighter exposure was inserted at 4.5 h in both the GTP-Rho and Total Rho panels. Below is the unmanipulated data. The conclusions are unaltered. We apologize for these serious mistakes, and note that the conclusions of the paper stand. Finally, it should be noted that samples from a single experiment were fractionated on different gels to assess ERK activity by gel-shift and by phosphoERK levels as indicated in the Methods. This precludes direct quantitative comparisons between the panels. CORRIGENDUM Figure 2c Figure 4b Figure 3a + – + – Tetracycline MEK* Cyclin D1 mRNA Cdk4 mRNA 10% FCS 0.5% FCS Toxin A-treated ERK2 p-Erk2 ERK1 p-Erk1 Incubation on FN with bFGF (h) Incubation on FN with bFGF (h) 0 1 3 6 9 0 1 3 6 9 0 1 3 6 9 0 13 6 9 ERK p-ERK Cyclin D1 Cdk4 Vector RBD Vector C3 Incubation of FN with bFGF (h) 0 2 4 8 0 2 4 8 0 2 4 8 0 2 4 8 Cdk4 Cyclin D1 Vector Rac* Cdc42* RhoA* Controls + – GTP-Rho Total Rho Incubation on FN with bFGF (h) 0 0.2 1 4.5 9 Figure 6a 1496 NATURE CELL BIOLOGY VOLUME 11 | NUMBER 12 | DECEMBER 2009 © 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
Transcript of Timing of cyclin D1 expression within G1 phase is controlled by Rho
CORRIGENDA
Timing of cyclin D1 expression within G1 phase is controlled by RhoCatherine F. Welsh, Kristin Roovers, Jessie Villanueva, YunQi Liu, Martin A. Schwartz and Richard K. Assoian
Nature Cell Biol. 3, 950–957 (2001); published online 5 October 2001
In the version of the article initially published, two panels contain duplicated bands. The left hand side part of the Cdk4 northern blot in Fig. 2c is identical to the G0 panel of the ERK1/ERK2 western blot. The northern blot data with the correct data is displayed below. The vector control panel of the ERK1/2 western blot of Fig. 3a contains one lane which was duplicated and spliced in an inverted form. The original underlying data was not found, but unmanipulated data from alterna-tive experiments allowing the same conclusions are presented below. In Fig. 1c the 6 h timepoint should have been labelled 3 h (although the excised 6 h timepoint is quantitatively similar). In the northern blots presented in Fig. 1c, there is a splice between lanes 3 and 4 of both blots, which should have been marked; we confirm that the samples were run
on the same gel. In Fig. 4b, a darker exposure of the 8 h lane was inserted in the vector blots for cyclin D1 and cdk4. Below is the unmanipulated data. The conclusions are unaltered. In Fig. 5b there is a splice between lanes 5 and 6 of both blots, which should have been marked; we confirm that the samples were run on the same gel. In Fig. 6a, a lighter exposure was inserted at 4.5 h in both the GTP-Rho and Total Rho panels. Below is the unmanipulated data. The conclusions are unaltered. We apologize for these serious mistakes, and note that the conclusions of the paper stand. Finally, it should be noted that samples from a single experiment were fractionated on different gels to assess ERK activity by gel-shift and by phosphoERK levels as indicated in the Methods. This precludes direct quantitative comparisons between the panels.
CORRIGENDUM
Figure 2c
Figure 4b
Figure 3a
+ – + –
Tetracycline
MEK*
Cyclin D1 mRNA
Cdk4 mRNA
10% FCS 0.5% FCS
Toxin A-treated
ERK2
p-Erk2
ERK1
p-Erk1
Incubation on FN with bFGF (h) Incubation on FN with bFGF (h)
0 1 3 6 9 0 1 3 6 9 0 1 3 6 9 0 1 3 6 9
ERK
p-ERK
Cyclin D1
Cdk4
Vector RBD Vector C3
Incubation of FN with bFGF (h)
0 2 4 8 0 2 4 8 0 2 4 8 0 2 4 8
Cdk4
Cyclin D1
Vector Rac* Cdc42* RhoA*
Controls+ –
GTP-Rho
Total Rho
Incubation on FN with bFGF (h)
0 0.2 1 4.5 9
Figure 6a
1496 nature cell biology volume 11 | number 12 | DeCember 2009
© 2009 Macmillan Publishers Limited. All rights reserved.
