Year: 2024
Type: erratum
Abstract: After this article [1] was published, concerns were raised about Fig 4A.Specifically:• The L858R 1 and 10 μM panels are duplicated.• The wt+EGF 0, 1 and 10, the L858R 0, 0.001, 0.1, 1 and 10, the G719S 0, 0.001 and 0.1, the D770_N771 insNPG 0 and 0.1, and the L747_E749 del, A750P 0.1, 1 and 10 panels appear to have similar background features.In response, the first and corresponding author, HG, stated that the L858R 1 μM panel in Fig 4A is incorrect and provided an updated version of Fig 4 here where the L858R 1 μM panel has been replaced with the correct panel from the original experiments.They also stated that any similarities in background would be aberrations in the microscope lens or lighting that apply to all images and provided underlying data from the original experiments (S1-S7 Files) and from repeat experiments (S8-S16 Files).The first and corresponding author, HG, stated that the raw images for the whole plates used for the assay in Fig 4A are no longer available, but they are available for a repeat experiment (see 10.5061/dryad.nvx0k6f1f).They also stated that for the soft agar assays, kinase-inactive EGFR expressing cells (or parental 3T3 cells) are a reasonable negative control as they form no colonies which can be seen in Fig 1A in [1], and Fig 4A does include cells treated with 10 uM erlotinib which is enough to inhibit all soft agar colony formation.PLOS received contradictory input on whether the similarities in the backgrounds for some of the panels in Fig 4A would be expected for these microscopy images.An independent expert advised that aberrations in the microscope lens or lighting would appear in all panels, not some.They also reviewed the underlying and repeat data provided and advised there are no concerns and that the data provided support the results reported in [1].While this issue has not been fully resolved, the PLOS Medicine Editors are satisfied that the data provided (S3, S13, S14 Files and 10.5061/dryad.nvx0k6f1f)appear to support the published results.Questions were also raised about EGFR blot data reported for wild-type + EGF experiments in Fig 5, but PLOS reviewed the data provided for these experiments (S4-S7 Files) and concluded that the data support the published results.The remainder of the data underlying this article are available from the first and corresponding author, HG.
Source: PLoS Medicine
Language: English
Subfield: Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine
Field: Medicine
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: gold
Estimated APC paid: $6,300
OpenAlex ID: W4402580910