A critical review of pharmacological significance of Hydrogen Sulfide in hypertension: Erratum.

In the article, “A critical review of pharmacological significance of Hydrogen Sulfide in hypertension”, which appeared in the pages 243-247, Issue 3, Vol 47 of Indian Journal of Pharmacology,[1] the sentence “In his previous studies in 2002[43] documented the interaction between hydrogen sulfide and NO resulting in the formation of the intermediate compound nitrosothiol, which releases NO through hemolysis.” on page 245 is written incorrectly instead of “In his previous studies in 2002, Grossi L and coworkers[43] documented the interaction between hydrogen sulfide and NO resulting in the formation of the intermediate compound nitrosothiol, which releases NO through hemolysis.”

The sentence “In 2006[45] has proven that the interaction between two gasotransmitters results in the formation of nitrosothiol and the release of only a small portion of NO unless an antioxidant is involved.” on page 246 is written incorrectly instead of “In 2006[45] Whiteman and coworkers have proven that the interaction between two gasotransmitters results in the formation of nitrosothiol and the release of only a small portion of NO unless an antioxidant is involved.”

The sentence[46] “has elaborated that H2 S is responsible for the inhibition of eNOS, as well as iNOS and nNOS.” on page 246 is written incorrectly instead of “Kubo S and coworkers[46] have elaborated that H2 S is responsible for the inhibition of eNOS, as well as iNOS and nNOS.”

The sentence “In a related study in 2010,[50] reported that eNOS and neuronal nitric oxide synthase (NOS) activation is important to produce a cardioprotective response.” on page 246 is written incorrectly instead of “A related study in 2010[50] reported that eNOS and neuronal nitric oxide synthase (NOS) activation is important to produce a cardioprotective response”.

The sentence “The cardioprotective response of NOS family mentioned in[50],[51] is contrary to the results by”.[46] on page 246 is written incorrectly instead of “The cardioprotective response of NOS family mentioned in studies by Yong QC and Minamishima S and coworkers[50],[51] is contrary to the results by Kubo S and coworkers”.[46]

These have now been corrected and reposted online.