Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeCorrections
Posted by kolbert on 11 Jun 2013 at 21:05 GMT
It has come to our attention that errors occurred in the data analysis that will require correction. While these errors were unfortunate, most of the corrections were minor. The major findings and conclusions of the work remain unchanged. Changes >5% in value are described below.
Results Section, paragraph 1:
Line 16, Original: The miRNA detection count obtained by the NanoString platform ranged from 350 for FF2 to 76 for H1299-1 and replicate correlations ranged from 0.643 to 0.989.
Corrected: The miRNA detection count obtained by the NanoString platform ranged from 259 for FFPE9b to 103 for H1299-2 and replicate correlations ranged from 0.950 to 0.967.
Results Section, paragraph 3:
Line 10, Original: However, detection by Affymetrix and NanoString was nearly 10% higher in FF2 than FF1.
Corrected: However, detection by Affymetrix was nearly 10% higher in FF2 than FF1.
Line 18, Original: …12% to 14% of the commonly interrogated transcripts in H1299 cells.
Corrected: …12% to 20% of the commonly interrogated transcripts in H1299 cells.
Table 1: Replicate performance of tested miRNA platforms.
NanoString Detected Transcripts:
Sample Original Corrected
FF1 257 216
FF2 350 223
FFPE9a 250 242
FFPE9b 270 259
H1299-1 76 115
H1299-2 86 103
NanoString r-values:
H1299: Original: 0.643
Corrected: 0.950
Figure 2.
–Panels 2A-2D and the related text in Results Section, paragraph 2: Correlation coefficiencies “r” should be shown as R2.
Discussion Section, paragraph 5:
Line 1, Original: Pairwise comparison of Affymetrix/Illumina and Affymetrix/miRNA-Seq also demonstrated agreement for all but the FF1 sample (Figure S2), suggesting that the lower detection calls for this sample may have contributed to lower inter-platform concordance.
Corrected: Pairwise comparison of Affymetrix/Illumina and Affymetrix/miRNA-Seq also demonstrated agreement for all samples (Figure S2).