Corrigendum: First-time report on compound isolation from two Colocasia species: vegetable-derived bioactive metabolites and their medicinal potential
Safaet Alam, Fahmida Tasnim Richi, Nazim Uddin Emon, Abu Asad Chowdhury, Choudhury Mahmood Hasan, Mohammad Rashedul Haque
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
TopicsPacific and Southeast Asian Studies
In the published article, there was an error in the Footnote for “Table 3” as published. An incorrect expression was used; “[n = 5]” was used when this should have been “[n = 3]”. The corrected footnote appears below.
“Values are expressed as mean ± SEM (n = 3); CTL, negative control; STD, positive control; ***p < 0.001, **p < 0.01, *p < 0.05 compared to negative control.”
In the published article, there was an error in Table 4 as published. Columns 1-3 of “Table 3” were incorrectly replicated as Table 4. The corrected Table 4 and its caption appear below.
In the published article, there was an error. The number of mice included in the control and test groups for pharmacological assessment was incorrect.
A correction has been made to Materials and Methods, Experimental design, In vivo tests, Antidiarrheal bioassay: castor oil-induced diarrhea test, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:
“In this study, the mice were divided into four groups: control, positive control, and two test groups, each containing five mice.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“In this study, the mice were divided into twelve groups: control, positive control, and ten test groups, each containing three mice.”
In the published article, there was an error. The number of mice included in the control and test groups for pharmacological assessment was incorrect.
A correction has been made to Materials and Methods, Experimental design, In vivo tests, Analgesic bioassay: acetic acid-induced writhing test, Paragraph 1. This sentence previously stated:
“In this study protocol, mice were divided into four groups: control, positive control, and two test groups, each containing five mice.”
The corrected sentence appears below:
“In this study protocol, mice were divided into twelve groups: control, positive control, and ten test groups, each containing three mice.”
In the published article, there was an error.
A correction has been made to Results, In vivo study, Effect of the identified test compounds on formalin-induced licking in the mice model, Paragraph 1. These sentences previously stated:
“C5 and C2 demonstrated the highest anti-inflammatory efficacy among the compounds evaluated, resulting in a 44.44% and 40.74% reduction in licking respectively, at a dose of 20 mg/kg. On the other hand, the standard drug ibuprofen led to a decrease of 77.78% at a dose of 10 mg/kg.”
The corrected sentences appear below:
“C5 and C2 demonstrated the highest anti-inflammatory efficacy among the compounds evaluated, resulting in a 64.50% and 68.15% reduction in licking during the early phase and a 66.66% and 52.06% reduction during the later phase, respectively, at a dosage of 20 mg/kg. On the other hand, the standard drug ibuprofen led to a decrease of 73.54% and 74.68% in early and late phase subsequently.”
The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.