Correction: Wang et al. Establishment of an In Vitro Regeneration System and Analysis of Endogenous Hormone Dynamics in Melastoma dodecandrum. Horticulturae 2025, 11, 875

There was an error in the original publication [1].

• In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 1 as published. Due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table, the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned. After re-analysis using the correct post hoc comparison method, the significance groupings have been revised. The corrected Table 1 appears below.

Table 1. Effect of PGRs on callus induction.

Treatment Number	Concentration of 6-BA/mg·L−1	Concentration of 2,4-D/mg·L−1	Induction Rate/%	Callus Growth
CK	0.0	0.0	0.00 ± 0.00 f	Browning, death
Y1	0.1	1.0	73.33 ± 3.35 de	Callus appeared on Day 12, reddish-brown, loose
Y2	0.5	1.0	94.43 ± 5.10 a	Callus appeared on Day 14, reddish-brown, loose
Y3	1.0	1.0	85.57 ± 5.10 abc	Callus appeared on Day 14, reddish-brown, loose
Y4	0.1	1.5	91.10 ± 1.90 ab	Callus appeared on Day 12, yellowish-white with red granules, loose
Y5	0.5	1.5	76.70 ± 10.00 cde	Callus appeared on Day 13, yellowish-white, red granules, loose
Y6	1.0	1.5	95.53 ± 3.87 a	Callus appeared on Day 10, yellow-green whitish, compact
Y7	0.1	2.0	82.23 ± 6.93 bcd	Callus appeared on Day 13, yellow-green, compact
Y8	0.5	2.0	96.67 ± 3.35 a	Callus appeared on Day 11, yellow-green, compact
Y9	1.0	2.0	66.67 ± 12.05 e	Callus appeared on Day 13, yellow-green, compact

Note: The callus-induction rate was statistically analyzed 30 days later. In the table, “CK” is the control group and “Y1–Y9”represent treatments 1 to 9 with different concentrations of 2,4-D and 6-BA added. Means with different letters (a–f) indicate significant differences in multiple comparisons between treatments (p < 0.05).

Table 1. Effect of PGRs on callus induction.

Treatment Number	Concentration of 6-BA/mg·L−1	Concentration of 2,4-D/mg·L−1	Induction Rate/%	Callus Growth
CK	0.0	0.0	0.00 ± 0.00 f	Browning, death
Y1	0.1	1.0	73.33 ± 3.35 de	Callus appeared on Day 12, reddish-brown, loose
Y2	0.5	1.0	94.43 ± 5.10 a	Callus appeared on Day 14, reddish-brown, loose
Y3	1.0	1.0	85.57 ± 5.10 abc	Callus appeared on Day 14, reddish-brown, loose
Y4	0.1	1.5	91.10 ± 1.90 ab	Callus appeared on Day 12, yellowish-white with red granules, loose
Y5	0.5	1.5	76.70 ± 10.00 cde	Callus appeared on Day 13, yellowish-white, red granules, loose
Y6	1.0	1.5	95.53 ± 3.87 a	Callus appeared on Day 10, yellow-green whitish, compact
Y7	0.1	2.0	82.23 ± 6.93 bcd	Callus appeared on Day 13, yellow-green, compact
Y8	0.5	2.0	96.67 ± 3.35 a	Callus appeared on Day 11, yellow-green, compact
Y9	1.0	2.0	66.67 ± 12.05 e	Callus appeared on Day 13, yellow-green, compact

Note: The callus-induction rate was statistically analyzed 30 days later. In the table, “CK” is the control group and “Y1–Y9”represent treatments 1 to 9 with different concentrations of 2,4-D and 6-BA added. Means with different letters (a–f) indicate significant differences in multiple comparisons between treatments (p < 0.05).

2.

In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 2 as published. Due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table, the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned. After re-analysis using the correct post hoc comparison method, the significance groupings have been revised. The corrected

Table 2. Effects of different PGR treatments on callus differentiation.

Treatment Number	Concentration of 6-BA/mg·L−1	Concentration of NAA/mg·L−1	Differentiation Rate/%
CK	0.0	0.0	0.00 ± 0.00 f
F1	1.0	0.3	42.23 ± 3.85 de
F2	1.5	0.3	33.33 ± 3.34 e
F3	2.0	0.3	51.11 ± 8.39 d
F4	2.5	0.3	65.56 ± 5.09 c
F5	1.0	0.5	73.22 ± 9.01 abc
F6	1.5	0.5	76.67 ± 3.34 ab
F7	2.0	0.5	83.33 ± 3.34 a
F8	2.5	0.5	67.78 ± 5.09 bc

Note: The callus-differentiation rate was statistically analyzed 40 days later. In the table, “CK” is the control group and “F1–F8” represent treatments 1 to 8, with different concentrations of 6-BA and NAA added. Mean values and standard deviations are shown. Lowercase letters (a–f) in the same column of the table indicate significant differences in multiple comparisons between treatments (p < 0.05).

appears below.

3.

In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 3 as published. Due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table, the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned. After re-analysis using the correct post hoc comparison method, the significance groupings have been revised. The corrected

Table 3. Effect of PGRs on adventitious bud proliferation.

Treatment Number	Concentration of 6-BA/mg·L−1	Concentration of NAA/mg·L−1	Initial Weight/g	Final Weight/g	Adventitious Bud Proliferation Coefficient
CK	0.0	0.0	2.68 ± 0.48 a	10.02 ± 2.42 c	3.98 ± 0.73 f
Z1	0.5	0.1	1.16 ± 0.41 c	12.73 ± 2.73 bc	11.92 ± 2.24 cde
Z2	1.0	0.1	1.17 ± 0.19 c	15.45 ± 2.95 ab	15.44 ± 1.33 bc
Z3	1.5	0.1	1.05 ± 0.25 c	19.78 ± 3.64 a	20.44 ± 2.51 a
Z4	2.0	0.1	1.25 ± 0.44 c	14.72 ± 4.51 abc	13.07 ± 0.89 bcd
Z5	0.5	0.2	1.14 ± 0.04 c	17.36 ± 0.02 ab	16.45 ± 1.67 b
Z6	1.0	0.2	1.57 ± 0.81 bc	16.62 ± 2.26 ab	13.44 ± 3.70 bcd
Z7	1.5	0.2	1.64 ± 0.44 bc	15.98 ± 2.99 ab	10.12 ± 0.93 de
Z8	2.0	0.2	2.14 ± 0.53 ab	17.44 ± 1.88 ab	8.69 ± 1.16 e

Note: The coefficient of adventitious bud proliferation was statistically analyzed 30 days later. In the table, “CK” is the control group and “Z1–Z8” represent treatments 1 to 8, with different concentrations of 6-BA and NAA added. Mean values and standard deviations are shown. Lowercase letters (a–f) in the same column of the table indicate significant differences in multiple comparisons between treatments (p < 0.05).

appears below.

4.

In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 4 as published. To improve clarity and readability, we have modified the presentation of the rooting images by separating them into two tables (

Table 4. Effect of PGRs on adventitious bud rooting.

Treatment Number	Basic Medium	Concentration of IBA/mg·L−1	Number of Roots/Strip	Root Length/cm	Rooting Rate/%
CK1	MS	0.0	3.27 ± 0.49 b	1.11 ± 0.13 b	87.41 ± 6.58 b
S1		0.1	5.91 ± 0.41 a	2.11 ± 0.15 a	98.15 ± 3.21 a
S2		0.2	6.76 ± 0.97 a	2.18 ± 0.32 a	100.00 ± 0.00 a
S3		0.5	6.97 ± 0.23 a	2.39 ± 0.11 a	100.00 ± 0.00 a

Note: The rooting rate, number of roots and length, as statistically analyzed 30 days later. In the table, “CK1” is the control group, while “S1–S3” represent treatments 1 to 3 with different concentrations of 6-BA and NAA added. Mean values and standard deviations are shown. Lowercase letters (a, b) in the same column of the table indicate significant differences in multiple comparisons between treatments (p < 0.05).

and Table 5). The corrected Table 4 appears below.

5.

In the original publication, there was a mistake in Table 4 as published. To improve clarity and readability, we have modified the presentation of the rooting images by separating them into two tables (Table 4 and Table 5). Due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table, the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned. After re-analysis using the correct post hoc comparison method, the significance groupings have been revised. The corrected Table 5 appears below.

Table 5. Effect of PGRs on adventitious bud rooting.

Treatment Number	Basic Medium	Concentration of IBA/mg·L−1	Number of Roots/Strip	Root Length/cm	Rooting Rate/%
CK2	1/2MS	0.0	2.73 ± 0.89 c	1.91 ± 0.37 c	80.99 ± 18.37 b
S4		0.1	5.14 ± 0.49 b	2.97 ± 0.52 a	100.00 ± 0.00 a
S5		0.2	5.45 ± 0.69 b	2.43 ± 0.46 ab	100.00 ± 0.00 a
S6		0.5	7.35 ± 1.36 a	2.37 ± 0.16 ab	100.00 ± 0.00 a

Note: The rooting rate, number of roots and length, as statistically analyzed 30 days later. In the table, “CK2” is the control group, while “S4–S6” represent treatments 4 to 6 with different concentrations of 6-BA and NAA added. Mean values and standard deviations are shown. Lowercase letters (a–c) in the same column of the table indicate significant differences in multiple comparisons between treatments (p < 0.05).

Table 5. Effect of PGRs on adventitious bud rooting.

Treatment Number	Basic Medium	Concentration of IBA/mg·L−1	Number of Roots/Strip	Root Length/cm	Rooting Rate/%
CK2	1/2MS	0.0	2.73 ± 0.89 c	1.91 ± 0.37 c	80.99 ± 18.37 b
S4		0.1	5.14 ± 0.49 b	2.97 ± 0.52 a	100.00 ± 0.00 a
S5		0.2	5.45 ± 0.69 b	2.43 ± 0.46 ab	100.00 ± 0.00 a
S6		0.5	7.35 ± 1.36 a	2.37 ± 0.16 ab	100.00 ± 0.00 a

Note: The rooting rate, number of roots and length, as statistically analyzed 30 days later. In the table, “CK2” is the control group, while “S4–S6” represent treatments 4 to 6 with different concentrations of 6-BA and NAA added. Mean values and standard deviations are shown. Lowercase letters (a–c) in the same column of the table indicate significant differences in multiple comparisons between treatments (p < 0.05).

6.

In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 6 as published. Due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table, the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned. After re-analysis using the correct post hoc comparison method, the significance groupings have been revised. The corrected Figure 6 appears below.

7.

In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 7 as published. Due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table, the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned. After re-analysis using the correct post hoc comparison method, the significance groupings have been revised. The corrected Figure 7 appears below.

8.

In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 8 as published. The error was due to a misalignment during the formatting or export of the figure, which caused inconsistencies between the statistical output and the graphical annotations; the significance groupings have been revised. The corrected Figure 8 appears below.

9.

In the original publication, there was a mistake in Figure 9 as published. The error was due to a misalignment during the formatting or export of the figure, which caused inconsistencies between the statistical output and the graphical annotations; the significance groupings have been revised. The corrected Figure 9 appears below.

• There was an error in the original publication [1]. Due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table, the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned. After re-analysis using the correct post hoc comparison method, the significance groupings have been revised.

A correction has been made to the Abstract as follows: “The optimal PGR combinations for shoot proliferation was 1.5 mg·L⁻¹ 6-BA + 0.1 mg·L⁻¹ NAA. The optimal rooting media was MS medium supplemented with 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg·L⁻¹ indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) or 1/2MS medium supplemented with 0.5 mg·L⁻¹ IBA.”

2.

An error was made due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table; the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned.

Therefore, a correction was also made to Section 2.7 of Materials and Methods, updating the post hoc analysis method, i.e., changing Tukey’s HSD test to Duncan’s multiple range test.

3.

Due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table, the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned. After re-analysis using the correct post hoc comparison method, the significance groupings have been revised.

A correction has been made to Section 3.3 as follows: “The highest proliferation coefficient was observed in treatment Z3, which had been treated with 1.5 mg·L⁻¹ 6-BA and 0.1 mg·L⁻¹ NAA. After 30 days, the volumes of adventitious shoots and proliferation coefficients in treatment Z3 (Figure 3B) were noticeably larger than those of the control group (CK) (Figure 3C).

Therefore, the optimal combination of PGRs for shoot proliferation was 1.5 mg·L⁻¹ 6-BA + 0.1 mg·L⁻¹ NAA.”

4.

Due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table, the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned. After re-analysis using the correct post hoc comparison method, the significance groupings have been revised.

A correction has been made to Section 3.4 as follows: “In 1/2 MS medium, the application of 0.5 mg·L⁻¹ IBA resulted in a 100% rooting rate, with significantly number of roots averaging 7.35 cm, compared to CK2 (80.99% rooting rate) (p < 0.05).

Therefore, the optimal rooting media were MS medium supplemented with 0.1, 0.2, or 0.5 mg·L⁻¹ IBA and 1/2 MS medium supplemented with 0.5 mg·L⁻¹ IBA.”

5.

The error was due to an oversight, and we confirm that it resulted from an inadvertent typographical error during editing.

A correction has been made to Section 3.5 as follows: “ABA reached a peak on day 14 (122.78 ng·g⁻¹) that was significantly higher than the baseline level of 89.89 ng·g⁻¹ (p < 0.05).

As shown in Figure 6B, ABA/ZT ratios increased during the early induction stage (0–14 days)”, “and IAA/ZT” was removed.

6.

The error was due to an oversight, and we confirm that it resulted from an inadvertent typographical error during editing.

A correction has been made to Section 3.6 as follows: “which was significantly less than in earlier stages (p < 0.05). Concurrently, IAA levels first decreased and then increased, reaching their lowest point on day 20 (29.93 ng·g⁻¹, p < 0.05).”

7.

The error was due to a misalignment during the formatting or export of the figure, which caused inconsistencies between the statistical output and the graphical annotations; the significance groupings have been revised.

A correction has been made to Section 3.6 as follows: “In contrast, ZT concentrations remained largely unchanged at basal levels.”

8.

This error was due to a misalignment during the formatting or export of the figure, which caused inconsistencies between the statistical output and the graphical annotations; the significance groupings have been revised.

A correction has been made to Section 3.7 as follows: “culminating in lower levels on day 28 (18.92 ng·g⁻¹) compared to day 0 (22.85 ng·g⁻¹) (p < 0.05).”

9.

Due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table, the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned. After re-analysis using the correct post hoc comparison method, the significance groupings have been revised.

A correction has been made to paragraph 3 of the Discussion as follows: we deleted “or 0.5 mg·L⁻¹ 6-BA + 0.2 mg·L⁻¹ NAA”, it should be read as “In this study, a combination of 1.5 mg·L⁻¹ 6-BA + 0.1 mg·L⁻¹ NAA resulted in a higher proliferation coefficient”.

10.

Due to inconsistencies in the post hoc analysis method during the preparation of the original table, the superscript letters indicating significance were incorrectly assigned. After re-analysis using the correct post hoc comparison method, the significance groupings have been revised.

A correction has been made to paragraph 4 of the Discussion as follows: “the optimal medium combination for M. dodecandrum rooting were MS medium supplemented with 0.1, 0.2, and 0.5 mg·L⁻¹ IBA or 1/2 MS medium supplemented with 0.5 mg·L⁻¹ IBA.”

The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.