Correction to: Nature Communications https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40567-5, published online 10 August 2023
The original version of this Article contained errors in the legends of Figures 1–4, 6, and 7.
The legend of Figure 1 originally incorrectly read ‘P-value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P-values were determined by two-way ANOVA (Dunnett’s test) (f) or two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (g, h, i, j and k).’
The legend of Figure 2 originally incorrectly read ‘P-value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P-values were determined by two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (a, b, d–f, i, j), ordinary one-way ANOVA (Tukey’s test) (h) or two-way ANOVA (Tukey’s test) (l).’
The legend of Figure 2h originally incorrectly read ‘GFP-VSV titers were quantitated in plaque assay (For d, VSV: *p = 0.0123, ****p < 0.0001 in sequence).’ The correct version states ‘For h’ instead of ‘For d’.
The legend of Figure 2l originally incorrectly read ‘IFNB1 induction was measured by qPCR (For l, IFNB1: ****p < 0.0001, ***p = 0.0001, nsp = 0.9957 in sequence).’ The correct version states ‘***p = 0.0004’ instead of ‘***p = 0.0001’.
The legend of Figure 3 originally incorrectly read ‘P-value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P-values were determined by two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (a–c, h) or unpaired two-sided t-test (e).’
The legend of Figure 3h originally incorrectly read ‘IFNB1 induction was measured by qPCR (ISRE: all ****p < 0.0001; nsp = 0.9998).’ The correct version states ‘IFNB1’ instead of ‘ISRE’.
The legend of Figure 4 originally incorrectly read ‘P-value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P-values were determined by two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (i).’
The legend of Figure 4i originally incorrectly read ‘Cells were harvested at specified time points post infection and IFNB1 induction was measured by qPCR (IFNB1: all nsp > 0.9999, ***p < 0.0001, **p = 0.0018).’ The correct version states ‘****p < 0.0001’ instead of ‘***p < 0.0001’.
The legend of Figure 6 originally incorrectly read ‘P-value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P-values were determined by two-way ANOVA (Tukey’s test) (a, b, g), two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (c) or two-way ANOVA (Dunnett’s test) (d–f).’
The legend of Figure 7 originally incorrectly read ‘P-value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P-values were determined by two-way ANOVA (Tukey’s test) (a, c), two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (b, d, h) or Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test (f, g, i).’
The legend of Figure 7i originally incorrectly read ‘WT, Wdr77CKO and Mavs-/- mice (n = 10 each) were injected intravenously with HSV at 1.5 × 108 PFU per mouse, and the survival rates were monitored for 15 days (*p = 0.445).’ The correct version states ‘nsp = 0.445’ instead of ‘*p = 0.445’.
This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.
The original version of this Article contained errors in the legends of supplementary Figures 1–5, 7, and 8.
The legend of supplementary Figure 1 originally incorrectly read ‘P value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P values were determined by two-way ANOVA (Dunnett’s test) (a, b).’
The legend of supplementary Figure 2 originally incorrectly read ‘P value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P values were determined by unpaired two-sided t-test (b), ordinary one-way ANOVA (Dunnett’s test) (e) or two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (c, f, g).’
The legend of supplementary Figure 3 originally incorrectly read ‘P value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P values were determined by two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (b–e, g, i).’
The legend of supplementary Figure 4 originally incorrectly read ‘P value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P values were determined by two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (c, e, f, h).’
The legend of supplementary Figure 5 originally incorrectly read ‘P value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P values were determined by two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (g).’
The legend of supplementary Figure 7 originally incorrectly read ‘P value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P values were determined by ordinary one-way ANOVA (Dunnett’s test) (e, f), two-way ANOVA (Dunnett’s test) (g, i–k) or two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (h).’
The legend of supplementary Figure 8 originally incorrectly read ‘P value was determined by two-tailed Student’s t-test.’ The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘P values were determined by two-way ANOVA (Dunnett’s test) (a, c, d (liver), e (lung), f (spleen, lung)), two-way ANOVA (Tukey’s test) (b, d (spleen, lung), e (spleen), f (liver)), or two-way ANOVA (Šídák’s test) (e (liver)).’
The HTML has been updated to include a corrected version of the Supplementary Information.
The original version of this Article contained errors in the Statistical Analysis in the Methods.
The Statistical Analysis in the Methods originally incorrectly read ‘Unpaired two-sided Student’s t-test was used to analyze the significance of mean values between groups. Kaplan–Meier survival analysis was used to analyze mouse survival data by two-sided log-rank (Mantel–Cox) test.’
The correct version replaces these sentences with ‘Unpaired two-sided Student’s t-test, ordinary one-way ANOVA and two-way ANOVA were used to analyze the significance of the differences between groups. Survival data of mice were analyzed using Gehan-Breslow-Wilcoxon test.’
This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.
The original version of this Article contained an error in the Source Data for Figure 2h.
The Source Data for Figure 2h originally incorrectly read ’35.6, 27.2 and 24.8’ for VSV titer in WT, and ‘7.4, 6 and 8’ for VSV titer in WDR77-/- and omitted measurements for MAVS-/-. The correct version replaces these values with ‘410000000, 310000000 and 370000000’ for VSV titer in WT, and ‘44000000, 38000000 and 34000000’ for VSV titer in WDR77-/-, and adds ‘1200000000, 1500000000 and 1300000000’ for VSV titer in MAVS-/-.
The HTML has been updated to include a corrected version of the Source Data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, J., Zhang, R., Wang, C. et al. Author Correction: WDR77 inhibits prion-like aggregation of MAVS to limit antiviral innate immune response. Nat Commun 14, 5960 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41712-w
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-41712-w
