Corrigendum

Errata

This article corrects:

  1. MAP Kinase 6-mediated activation of vacuolar processing enzyme modulates heat shock-induced programmed cell death in Arabidopsis Volume 195, Issue 1, 85–96, Article first published online: 12 April 2012

New Phytologist 195 (2012), 85–96.

Since its publication, it has been brought to our attention that the statistical analysis in Figs 7 and 8 is not clearly stated, which causes misunderstanding for readers. However, the overall conclusions and statements within the article are unaffected. For clarity, the detailed description of the statistical analysis methods and the revised Figs 7 (corrected) and 8 (corrected) are published below.

Figure 7.

(corrected) Plant growth condition and caspase-3-like activation of MPK6 mutants under heat shock (HS) treatment. (a) Fresh weight of WT, mpk6-2, mpk6-3 and MPK6-OE Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings after 6 and 12 d recovery periods after HS treatment (42°C, 2 h). (b) Caspase-3-like activity tested using an in vitro assay using the caspase-3 substrate in the HS-treated detached leaves of WT, mpk6-2, mpk6-3 and MPK6-OE. The protein extracts from the HS-treated detached leaves at indicated times of the recovery period after HS treatment (42°C, 2 h) were used. The samples were incubated with the caspase-3 substrate Ac-DEVD-pNA (200 mM) in assay buffer containing phenylmethylsulfonyl fluoride and EDTA. For each combination of treatment and time point, the mean and corresponding + SD (of five replicates) are shown. Differences among genotypes within each treatment were evaluated by two-way ANOVA (Bonferroni posttest, P < 0.05) and are shown by different letters. Differences among the same genotype at different time points and among the different genotypes within each time point were evaluated as described in the Materials and Methods section.

Figure 8.

(corrected) Role of MPK6 in heat shock (HS)-induced vacuolar processing enzyme (VPE) activation in Arabidopsis thaliana. (a) qRT-PCR analysis of γVPE expression in the HS-treated detached leaves of mpk6-2, mpk6-3 and MPK6-OE after HS treatment. Total RNAs were extracted from the detached leaves at 6 and 12 h into the recovery period after HS (42°C, 2 h). (b) Changes of HS-induced VPE activity in the HS-treated detached leaves of mpk6-2, mpk6-3 and MPK6-OE at 6 and 12 h recovery after HS treatment. (c) Changes of HS-induced VPE activity in the HS-treated detached leaves of MPK3/4/6 mutants during 15 h recovery period after HS treatment. The proteins were extracted from the HS-treated detached leaves at indicated time of the recovery period after HS (42°C, 2 h) for the activity assay with the VPE-specific fluorescent substrate, Ac-ESEN-MCA. For each combination of treatment and time point, the mean and corresponding + SD (of five replicates) are shown. Differences among genotypes within each treatment were evaluated by two-way ANOVA (Bonferroni posttest, P < 0.05) and are shown by different letters. Differences among the same genotype at different time points and among the different genotypes within each time point were evaluated as described in the Materials and Methods section.

We apologize to our readers for the negligence.

Statistical analysis methods

The statistical analysis underlying the presentations in Figs 7 and 8 was performed as follows. First, we analyzed the difference among the same genotype at different time points. We set the control of each genotype as ‘a’. At the different time points, if there was no significant difference (> 0.05) compared with the control, the data was labeled by ‘a’; if there was significant difference compared with the control, the data was labeled by ‘b’ (< 0.05) or ‘c’ (< 0.01). Second, we analyzed the difference among different genotypes within each time point. At each time point, the WT data was set as ‘a’, and if there was no significant difference (> 0.05) between other genotypes and WT, the data of other genotypes was labeled by ‘a’; if there was significant difference between other genotypes and WT, the data of other genotypes was labeled by ‘b’ (< 0.05) or ‘c’ (< 0.01). Notably: if the two analyses obtained the same letter (‘aa’ or ‘bb’), we only labeled as one letter (‘a’ or ‘b’). And the letters of each mean were presented in alphabetical order (Figs 7 and 8), but we now present them in test order to avoid confusion (Figs 7(corrected) and 8(corrected)). In all, using this method, each figure presents the results of two analyses: of differences over time from the control time for each genotype; and of differences from the reference (WT) genotype within each time point.

Ancillary