In the original publication [1], there was a mistake in Figure 5A as published. At the time of the experiment, we captured several pictures of the control. By mistake, we included the picture of the control TA-500. The corrected Figure 5A (TA-500) appears below.
Figure 5.
(A) ImageJ software (ImageJ bundled with 64-bit Java 8) was used to determine the cell-free region of the scratched region. The proportion of scratching cell migration detected 24 h after administration compared to control values represents the amount of cell migration. (B). Untreated cells are shown as controls. The values are provided as mean standard deviations, and the statistical significance is denoted by ** p < 0.001. The scale bar represents a magnification of ten.
In the original publication [1], there was a unit inconsistency in Table 2 as published. The values in the table should be reported as µg AAE/g extract, but we mistakenly reported them as µg AAE/mg extract. Additionally, we clarify that each value is presented as the mean ± standard deviation (SD) from three independent replicates (n = 3). The revised Table 2 and its footnote have been updated in the manuscript. The corrected Table 2 appears below.
Table 2.
TPC, TFC, and antioxidant efficacy of roasted and unroasted taheebo.
There was a unit inconsistency in Section 2. Materials and Methods. A correction has been made to Section 2.3.4. Procedure for Reducing Power Activity (RPA).
Original: The absorbance was measured at 700 nm with an ELISA reader. The findings are presented as μg of ascorbic acid equivalent per mg of sample (μg AAE/mg extract).
Revised: The absorbance was measured at 700 nm with an ELISA reader. The findings are presented as μg of ascorbic acid equivalent per g of sample (μg AAE/g extract).
There was a unit inconsistency in Section 3. Results. A correction has been made to Section 3.1. Antioxidant Activities of Taheebo and Roasted Taheebo, Paragraphs 1 and 2.
Original: The TPC of roasted taheebo was 65,263.64 ± 0.029, and that of unroasted taheebo was 54,877.27 ± 0.069 μg AAE/mg extract. The total flavonoid contents also varied: 1526.82 ± 0.001 and 1185.36 ± 0.001 μg AAE/mg extract for roasted and unroasted taheebo extracts, respectively.
Revised: The TPC of roasted taheebo was 65,263.64 ± 0.029, and that of unroasted taheebo was 54,877.27 ± 0.069 μg AAE/g extract. The total flavonoid contents also varied: 1526.82 ± 0.001 and 1185.36 ± 0.001 μg AAE/g extract for roasted and unroasted taheebo extracts, respectively.
Original: The results of the DPPH test indicate that the antioxidant efficacy of roasted and unroasted taheebo was 989.62 ± 0.015 and 767.73 ± 0.025 μg AAE/mg extract, respectively. The radical scavenging activity (% inhibition) vs. concentration curve shows that roasted taheebo has greater antioxidant capacity than unroasted taheebo in comparison to ascorbic acid (Figure 1A). Similarly, the results of the RPA reveal that the antioxidant reduction capability of the roasted and unroasted samples was 15.59 ± 0.006 and 11.66 ± 0.029 μg AAE/mg extract, respectively. The absorbance vs. concentration curve shows that roasted taheebo has a higher reducing capability than unroasted taheebo (Figure 1B).
Revised: The results of the DPPH test indicate that the antioxidant efficacy of roasted and unroasted taheebo was 989.62 ± 0.015 and 767.73 ± 0.025 μg AAE/g extract, respectively. The radical scavenging activity (% inhibition) vs. concentration curve shows that roasted taheebo has greater antioxidant capacity than unroasted taheebo in comparison to ascorbic acid (Figure 1A). Similarly, the results of the RPA reveal that the antioxidant reduction capability of the roasted and unroasted samples was 15.59 ± 0.006 and 11.66 ± 0.029 μg AAE/g extract, respectively. The absorbance vs. concentration curve shows that roasted taheebo has a higher reducing capability than unroasted taheebo (Figure 1B).
The authors have shared the raw data in a publicly accessible repository; the corrected Data Availability Statement appears below.
Data Availability Statement: The original data presented in the study are openly available in Figshare at DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.30880814.
The original reference [46] was withdrawn, and its contents are no longer of reference value. Additionally, the original reference [47] was mistakenly included; therefore, the authors would like to make the following corrections to their published paper [1] by replacing them with the following updated references:
- 46.
- Zaidieh, T.; Smith, J.R.; Ball, K.E.; An, Q. ROS as a novel indicator to predict anticancer drug efficacy. BMC Cancer 2019, 19, 1224.
- 47.
- Zou, Z.; Chang, H.; Li, H.; Wang, S. Induction of reactive oxygen species: An emerging approach for cancer therapy. Apoptosis 2017, 22, 1321–1335.
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
Reference
- Nahar, J.; Morshed, M.N.; Rupa, E.J.; Lee, J.H.; Kariyarath Valappil, A.; Awais, M.; Hun, K.J.; Sook, L.J.; Al-Amin, M.; Ahn, J.C.; et al. Roasting Extract of Handroanthus impetiginosus Enhances Its Anticancer Activity in A549 Lung Cancer Cells and Improves Its Antioxidant and Anti-Inflammatory Effects in Normal Cells. Appl. Sci. 2023, 13, 13171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license.