94% of researchers rate our articles as excellent or good
Learn more about the work of our research integrity team to safeguard the quality of each article we publish.
Find out more
Flávia Lopes Adami1
Mateus Vidigal de Castro2,3
Bianca da Silva Almeida1
Isabela Pazotti Daher1,4
Márcio Massao Yamamoto1
Keity Souza Santos4,5,6Mayana Zatz2,3
Michel Satya Naslavsky2,3
Daniela Santoro Rosa6,7
Edecio Cunha-Neto4,5,6Vivian Leite de Oliveira4†
Jorge Kalil4,5,6
Silvia Beatriz Boscardin1,6*†- 1Departamento de Parasitologia, Instituto de Ciências Biomédicas, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
- 2Centro de Estudos do Genoma Humano e Células Tronco, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
- 3Departamento de Genética e Biologia Evolutiva, Instituto de Biociências, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil
- 4Laboratório de Imunologia, LIM19, Instituto do Coração (InCor), Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (HCFMUSP), São Paulo, Brazil
- 5Departamento de Clínica Médica, Disciplina de Alergia e Imunologia Clínica, Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo (FMUSP), São Paulo, SP, Brazil
- 6Instituto de Investigação em Imunologia-Instituto Nacional de Ciências e Tecnologia (iii-INCT), São Paulo, Brazil
- 7Departamento de Microbiologia, Imunologia e Parasitologia, Disciplina de Imunologia, Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), São Paulo, Brazil
by Adami FL, de Castro MV, Almeida BdS, Daher IP, Yamamoto MM, Souza Santos K, Zatz M, Naslavsky MS, Rosa DS, Cunha-Neto E, de Oliveira VL, Kalil J and Boscardin SB (2024). Front. Immunol. 15:1396603. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2024.1396603
In the published article, there was an error in Supplementary Figure 2. Specifically, the graph depicting HCoV-NL63, originally intended for panel B, was mistakenly replaced with the HCoV-OC43 graph, which was already present in panel D. This resulted in a duplication of the HCoV-OC43 data in both panels B and D. In addition, the HCoV-HKU1 and HCoV-OC43 graphs were misplaced in panels C and D, respectively. The correct order is HCoV-OC43 (C) and HCoV-HKU1 (D).
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.
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.
Keywords: seasonal coronavirus, COVID-19, humoral immunity, cross-reactivity, RBD protein
Citation: Adami FL, de Castro MV, Almeida BdS, Daher IP, Yamamoto MM, Souza Santos K, Zatz M, Naslavsky MS, Rosa DS, Cunha-Neto E, de Oliveira VL, Kalil J and Boscardin SB (2025) Corrigendum: Anti-RBD IgG antibodies from endemic coronaviruses do not protect against the acquisition of SARS-CoV-2 infection among exposed uninfected individuals. Front. Immunol. 16:1598312. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1598312
Received: 22 March 2025; Accepted: 25 March 2025;
Published: 11 April 2025.
Edited and Reviewed by:
Pedro A. Reche, Complutense University of Madrid, SpainCopyright © 2025 Adami, de Castro, Almeida, Daher, Yamamoto, Souza Santos, Zatz, Naslavsky, Rosa, Cunha-Neto, de Oliveira, Kalil and Boscardin. 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: Silvia Beatriz Boscardin, c2Jib3NjYXJkaW5AdXNwLmJy
†These authors have contributed equally to this work