Next Article in Journal
Nanotechnologies in Delivery of DNA and mRNA Vaccines to the Nasal and Pulmonary Mucosa
Previous Article in Journal
Defect-Induced π-Magnetism into Non-Benzenoid Nanographenes
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Nanomaterials
Volume 12
Issue 2
10.3390/nano12020225
nanomaterials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
Correction to Nanomaterials 2021, 11(10), 2699.
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Correction

Correction: Quevedo et al. Mechanisms of Silver Nanoparticle Uptake by Embryonic Zebrafish Cells. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2699

by
Ana C. Quevedo
*,
Laura-Jayne A. Ellis
,
Iseult Lynch
* and
Eugenia Valsami-Jones
School of Geography, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham B15 2TT, UK
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Nanomaterials 2022, 12(2), 225; https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12020225
Submission received: 21 December 2021 / Accepted: 28 December 2021 / Published: 11 January 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes
Error in Figure/Table
In the original publication [1], two figures unrelated to the current manuscript were inserted during the copyedit stage. Thus, Figure 6 and Figure 7 are incorrect. The Editorial office apologizes for this error and for any inconvenience caused and the authors confirm that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated with the correct versions of Figure 6 and Figure 7, which are included here also.
Addition of an Author
Laura-Jayne A. Ellis was not included as an author in the original publication. The corrected Author Contributions Statement appears here. The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.
New Author Contribution statement:
Author Contributions: Formal analysis, A.C.Q.; Methodology, A.C.Q., L.-J.A.E.; Supervision, I.L. and E.V.-J.; Writing—original draft, A.C.Q.; Writing—review & editing, I.L. and E.V.-J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Reference

  1. Quevedo, A.C.; Ellis, L.-J.A.; Lynch, I.; Valsami-Jones, E. Mechanisms of Silver Nanoparticle Uptake by Embryonic Zebrafish Cells. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nanomaterials 12 00225 g001 550
Figure 6. Early endosome induction. The percentage of EE induction (EEI) in ZF4 cells treated with 2.5, 5, and 10 µg/mL of three different AgNP sizes (10, 30, and 100 nm) after (A) 2 and (B) 24 h. The intensity results were normalised to percentage (%) relative to the untreated cells (naive) (see Materials and Methods Section 2.6 for calculation). Data represent the mean of three individual replicates and above the bars the standard deviation (Mean ± SD). Data with asterisks (*) indicate a statistical difference (* p < 0.05) between the treatments compared to the untreated control (naive) at the specific timepoint.
Figure 6. Early endosome induction. The percentage of EE induction (EEI) in ZF4 cells treated with 2.5, 5, and 10 µg/mL of three different AgNP sizes (10, 30, and 100 nm) after (A) 2 and (B) 24 h. The intensity results were normalised to percentage (%) relative to the untreated cells (naive) (see Materials and Methods Section 2.6 for calculation). Data represent the mean of three individual replicates and above the bars the standard deviation (Mean ± SD). Data with asterisks (*) indicate a statistical difference (* p < 0.05) between the treatments compared to the untreated control (naive) at the specific timepoint.
Nanomaterials 12 00225 g001
Nanomaterials 12 00225 g002 550
Figure 7. Autophagy induction in ZF4 cells exposed to AgNPs as determined by confocal microscopy. ZF4 Cells were treated with 2.5, 5, and 10 µg/mL AgNPs of three different sized AgNPs (10, 30, and 100 nm) for 24 h. Images of the cells with the nucleus (blue) and autophagosome staining (green) were taken at 60× with a NIKON A1R 808 series microscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). A close-up of the labelled cells is marked with yellow lines. The intensity of the labelled autophagosomes in ZF4 cells was recorded by FIJI. (A) Results of three individual replicates are expressed as mean and standard deviation (Mean ± SD). A statistical comparison between all the treatments was performed. Data with asterisks (*) indicate a statistical difference (* p < 0.05) between the treatments compared to the untreated control (naive). The symbol above the bars (#) represents a statistically significant difference (# p < 0.05) between the marked treatments. (B) Cells treated with 10 µg/mL of different AgNPs sizes and the control. Images for the remaining AgNP concentrations and sizes can be found in the Supplementary Materials (Figure S4).
Figure 7. Autophagy induction in ZF4 cells exposed to AgNPs as determined by confocal microscopy. ZF4 Cells were treated with 2.5, 5, and 10 µg/mL AgNPs of three different sized AgNPs (10, 30, and 100 nm) for 24 h. Images of the cells with the nucleus (blue) and autophagosome staining (green) were taken at 60× with a NIKON A1R 808 series microscope (Nikon, Tokyo, Japan). A close-up of the labelled cells is marked with yellow lines. The intensity of the labelled autophagosomes in ZF4 cells was recorded by FIJI. (A) Results of three individual replicates are expressed as mean and standard deviation (Mean ± SD). A statistical comparison between all the treatments was performed. Data with asterisks (*) indicate a statistical difference (* p < 0.05) between the treatments compared to the untreated control (naive). The symbol above the bars (#) represents a statistically significant difference (# p < 0.05) between the marked treatments. (B) Cells treated with 10 µg/mL of different AgNPs sizes and the control. Images for the remaining AgNP concentrations and sizes can be found in the Supplementary Materials (Figure S4).
Nanomaterials 12 00225 g002
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Quevedo, A.C.; Ellis, L.-J.A.; Lynch, I.; Valsami-Jones, E. Correction: Quevedo et al. Mechanisms of Silver Nanoparticle Uptake by Embryonic Zebrafish Cells. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2699. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12020225

AMA Style

Quevedo AC, Ellis L-JA, Lynch I, Valsami-Jones E. Correction: Quevedo et al. Mechanisms of Silver Nanoparticle Uptake by Embryonic Zebrafish Cells. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2699. Nanomaterials. 2022; 12(2):225. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12020225

Chicago/Turabian Style

Quevedo, Ana C., Laura-Jayne A. Ellis, Iseult Lynch, and Eugenia Valsami-Jones. 2022. "Correction: Quevedo et al. Mechanisms of Silver Nanoparticle Uptake by Embryonic Zebrafish Cells. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2699" Nanomaterials 12, no. 2: 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12020225

APA Style

Quevedo, A. C., Ellis, L. -J. A., Lynch, I., & Valsami-Jones, E. (2022). Correction: Quevedo et al. Mechanisms of Silver Nanoparticle Uptake by Embryonic Zebrafish Cells. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2699. Nanomaterials, 12(2), 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/nano12020225

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop