Author Correction: Ganoderma tsuage promotes pain sensitivity in aging mice
Kai-Ning Yang, Chia-Ying Lin, Wei‑Nong Li, Chao‑Ming Tang, Jyotirmayee Pradhan, Ming‑Wei Chao, Chia‑Yi Tseng
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsPain Mechanisms and Treatments · Fungal Biology and Applications
Correction to: Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-024-61499-0, published online 21 May 2024
The original version of this Article contained an error in Figure 5, where there was an error in the legend of the y axis:
“Time spent in pain related behaviors (sec)” now reads “No. of paw licking”
Also there was an error in the caption of Figure 5:
“Formalin test to assess pain reaction in the right paw of mice upon D-gal-induced aging. In phase I (0–10min), the number of mice licking the paw increased in the D-Gal aging group compared to the control. In phase II (10–30min), the number of paw licking in the GT group significantly increased compared with the control. The number of paw-licking events in the aging group significantly decreased, which could be reversed by GT. N = 6 except control (N = 5).
now reads:
“Formalin test to assess pain reaction in the right paw of mice upon D-gal-induced aging. In phase I (0–10min), the number of mice licking the paw increased in the D-Gal aging group compared to the control. In phase II (10–30min), the number of paw licking in the GT group significantly increased compared with the control. The number of paw-licking events in the aging group significantly decreased, which could be reversed by GT. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 compared to the control of phase I using Student’s t-test and #p < 0.05, ##p < 0.01 compared to the control of phase II by Student’s t-test. N = 6 except control (N = 5)”
The original Article has been corrected.