In this Article, two papers are mistakenly listed as having made use of the antibody 14C8 instead of the antibody PPG5/10. In the Discussion section, ref. 45 is incorrectly cited as having shown that the antibody 14C8 works well, and in Fig. 5a, Saunders et al. 2000 is incorrectly depicted as using the 14C8 antibody. Both these papers used antibody PPG5/10 and neither paper includes experiments using 14C8. A corrected version of Fig. 5 appears below as Fig. 1.
Authors: Stefan Steurer; Claudia Riemann; Franziska Büscheck; Andreas M Luebke; Martina Kluth; Claudia Hube-Magg; Andrea Hinsch; Doris Höflmayer; Sören Weidemann; Christoph Fraune; Katharina Möller; Anne Menz; Margit Fisch; Michael Rink; Christian Bernreuther; Patrick Lebok; Till S Clauditz; Guido Sauter; Ria Uhlig; Waldemar Wilczak; David Dum; Ronald Simon; Sarah Minner; Eike Burandt; Rainer Krech; Till Krech; Andreas H Marx Journal: Biomark Res Date: 2021-01-25
Authors: Sebastian Dwertmann Rico; Moritz Mahnken; Franziska Büscheck; David Dum; Andreas M Luebke; Martina Kluth; Claudia Hube-Magg; Andrea Hinsch; Doris Höflmayer; Christina Möller-Koop; Christoph Fraune; Katharina Möller; Anne Menz; Christian Bernreuther; Frank Jacobsen; Patrick Lebok; Till S Clauditz; Guido Sauter; Ria Uhlig; Waldemar Wilczak; Ronald Simon; Stefan Steurer; Sarah Minner; Eike Burandt; Till Krech; Andreas H Marx Journal: Technol Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021 Jan-Dec