In the original article, there was a mistake in the legend for Figure 8 and Figure 9 as published. In Figure 8, the numbering of figure legends was incorrect. In Figure 9, the description of previous Figure 9 was not detailed enough. The correct legends appear below.
“FIGURE 8 | Representative images of BMSCs with the alizarin red staining to determine the mineralized nodules. (A) Control group; (B) TFDR low dosage group; (C) TFDR medium dosage group; (D) TFDR high dosage group; (E) The mineralized nodules at each time point of the control group, TFDR low dosage group, TFDR medium dosage group, and TFDR high dosage group were evaluated. The data are expressed as the mean ± SEM of three independent experiments. #p < 0.05 vs. control group, Δp < 0.05 vs. TFDR low dosage group, ▲p < 0.05 vs. TFDR high dosage group.”
“FIGURE 9 | The expressions of p38 MAPK, BMP-2, VEGF, HIF-1α, and RUNX-2 mRNA on BMSCs by quantitative real-time PCR. The data are expressed as the mean ± SEM of three independent experiments. *p < 0.05 vs. control group, #p < 0.05 vs. the TFDR low dosage group, TFDR high dosage group. (B) (a) p38 MAPK, p-p38 MAPK, BMP-2, RUNX-2, VEGF, and HIF-1αprotein expression on BMSCs detected by western blot analysis. (b)–(g) were statistical analysis of (a). The data are expressed as the mean ± SEM of three independent experiments. *p < 0.01 vs. the Control group; #p < 0.01 vs. the TFDR low dosage group.”
In addition, there was a mistake in Figure 3, Figure 7 and Figure 9 as published. The authors uploaded the wrong version of Figure 3 and Figure 7, and uploaded the previous version of Figure 9 by mistake. The corrected Figure 3, Figure 7 and Figure 9 appear below.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
FIGURE 3
FIGURE 7
FIGURE 9
Statements
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
drynariae rhizoma, experimental assessment, gusuibu, large bone defects, network pharmacology
Citation
Sun W, Li M, Xie L, Mai Z, Zhang Y, Luo L, Yan Z, Li Z, Dong H, Huang F, Shen Z and Jiang Z (2021) Corrigendum: Exploring the Mechanism of Total Flavonoids of Drynariae Rhizoma to Improve Large Bone Defects by Network Pharmacology and Experimental Assessment. Front. Pharmacol. 12:739503. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.739503
Received
11 July 2021
Accepted
13 July 2021
Published
23 July 2021
Approved by
Frontiers Editorial Office, Frontiers Media SA, Switzerland
Volume
12 - 2021
Updates
Copyright
© 2021 Sun, Li, Xie, Mai, Zhang, Luo, Yan, Li, Dong, Huang, Shen and Jiang.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Zhen Shen, 863491423@qq.com; Ziwei Jiang, jiangziwei1686@gzucm.edu.cn
†These authors have contributed equally to this work
This article was submitted to Ethnopharmacology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.