Wang B, Wang M, Li X, Yang M, Liu L. Pharmgenomics Pers Med. 2020;13:157—165.
Page 157, Abstract, Results section, the text “The mutant alleles of rs3864004 (A) and rs2293303 (T) located in CTNNB1 showed 1.513 (1.038–2.207), and 1.654 (1.020–2.683) fold increased risk of cervical cancer, respectively” should read “The mutant alleles of rs3864004 (A) and rs2293303 (T) located in CTNNB1 showed 0.661 (0.453-0.964), and 0.605 (0.373-0.981) fold risk of cervical cancer, respectively”.
Page 160, Results, Association Analysis of Eight Polymorphisms with Cervical Cancer section, the text “Compared with the healthy control group, the rs3864004 A allele (OR=1.513, 95% CI=1.038–2.207, P=0.031) of the CTNNB1 gene showed significant differences in the cervical cancer group. The minor allele (T) for rs2293303 was positively associated with a higher risk for cervical cancer development (OR=1.654, 95% CI=1.020–2.683, P=0.040, )” should read “Compared with the healthy control group, the rs3864004 A allele (OR=0.661, 95% CI=0.453-0.964, P=0.031) of the CTNNB1 gene showed significant differences in the cervical cancer group. The minor allele (T) for rs2293303 was positively associated with a lower risk for cervical cancer development (OR=0.605, 95%CI=0.373-0.981, P=0.040, )”.
Table 3 Association between alleles frequencies and cervical cancer risk
on page 161, the OR (95% CI) values are incorrect. The correct is shown below.
Page 162, Discussion, second paragraph, “In the single-locus analysis, we identified that mutant alleles of rs3864004 (A) and rs2293303 (T) might be risk factors for cervical cancer” should read “In the single-locus analysis, we identified that mutant alleles of rs3864004 (A) and rs2293303 (T) might be protective factors for cervical cancer”.
The authors apologize for these errors and advise they do not affect the scientific conclusions of the paper.