585
Views
0
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Corrigendum

Corrigendum

Pages 896-897 | Published online: 14 Mar 2013
This article refers to:
In Vitro Biocompatibility of Sheath–Core Cellulose-Acetate-Based Electrospun Scaffolds Towards Endothelial Cells and Platelets

Rubenstein DA, Venkitachalam SM, Zamfir D, Wang F, Lu H, Frame MD, Yin W. In vitro biocompatibility of sheath–core cellulose–acetate-based electrospun scaffolds towards endothelial cells and platelets. J. Biomater. Sci. Polym. Ed. 2010; 21:1713–1736. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/092050609X12559317149363

This Corrigendum is to correct a Figure and to clarify how some of the data was collected. When preparing Figure , we inadvertently duplicated Panels C and D. Panel C is the correct figure for the growth of endothelial cells on Chito-S/Chito-C for three days and the corresponding image for endothelial cell growth on Chito-S/Chito-C for five days (Panel D) was mistakenly not placed in the image. Additionally, Panels B and E were inadvertently duplicated during the image preparation. Panel B is the correct image, for endothelial cell growth on CA-S/CA-C for five days and Panel E has been replaced with the appropriate figure. We have prepared a new figure with a corrected Panel D and E. The quantitative analysis of our digital images, which was reported in Figure 4 and Table 3, remains the same. The corrected version of Figure is presented. All other figures in the original manuscript have been verified for accuracy. Additionally, it should be noted that some images were obtained using a Retiga Fast Cooled digital camera (Media Cybernetics, US), in lieu of the Coolsnap Fast Cooled digital camera (ES2), which was originally reported. When switching between these cameras, we were unable to document any differences in quantified data, magnification factors, etc. and thus, our quantitative data remains the same.

Figure 5 Digital images of HUVECs grown on cellulose–acetate-based dual-polymer electrospun scaffolds for 3 (A, C, E) or 5 (B, D, F) days. Scaffold formulations were CA-S/CA-C (A, B), Chito-S/Chito-C (C, D) or CA-S/Chito-C (E, F). Cells were stained with calcein (live, green) and ethidium (red, dead) as a live dead cell cytotoxicity assay. Scale bars are 100 μm. This figure is published in colour in the online edition of this journal that can be accessed via http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09205063.2013.775835

Figure 5 Digital images of HUVECs grown on cellulose–acetate-based dual-polymer electrospun scaffolds for 3 (A, C, E) or 5 (B, D, F) days. Scaffold formulations were CA-S/CA-C (A, B), Chito-S/Chito-C (C, D) or CA-S/Chito-C (E, F). Cells were stained with calcein (live, green) and ethidium (red, dead) as a live dead cell cytotoxicity assay. Scale bars are 100 μm. This figure is published in colour in the online edition of this journal that can be accessed via http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09205063.2013.775835

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.