There was one mistake in Figure 3 as published. Figure 3C/G-D 0%/AM/1d was inappropriately reused to represent a different experimental result in Figure 3C/G-D 0.5%/AM/1d. The corrected Figure 3 appears below.
Biocompatibility of the composite hydrogel. (A) Hemolysis activity determination. (B) Hemolysis rate of each group. (C) Fluorescence images of live/ dead staining for HFF fibroblasts. Scale bar: 200 µm. (D) Quantitative measurement of HFF fibroblast viability and cytotoxicity cultured with hydrogels using a CCK-8 kit. (E) CCK-8 analysis and (F) representative fluorescence images (scale bar: 500 µm) of reactive oxygen species (ROS) scavenging in HFF fibroblasts under different treatments. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
A series of images and graphs show hemolysis and cell viability tests. (A) Shows six test tubes with different hemolysis levels; ddH₂O is the most red. (B) Bar graph of hemolysis rates showing ddH₂O with the highest rate. (C) Images of cell cultures over five days with AM and PI staining, showing different treatment effects. (D) Bar graph showing cell viability over five days with various G-D concentrations, indicating increased viability over time. (E) Another bar graph showing cell viability with different treatments and over time, including H₂O₂. (F) Microscopy images of cells under different conditions, showing various levels of cell health.
There was one mistake in Figure 4 as published. Figure 4B/Control/24 h was inappropriately reused to represent a different experimental result in Figure 4B/G-D 0.05%/12 h. The corrected Figure 4 appears below.
Migration assays of HFF fibroblasts and HUVECs. (A,B) Scratch assays of HFF and HUVECs at 0, 12, and 24 h after treatment with hydrogel extracts (scale bar: 50 µm). (C,D) Quantitative analysis of migration areas in HFF and HUVEC scratch assays. (E) Morphological details of Transwell migration assays (scale bar: 100 µm). (F) Quantitative analysis of cell migration in Transwell assays of HFF cells. *P < 0.05, **P < 0.01, ***P < 0.001.
Panel A and B show cell migration images over time at different concentrations of G-D, with control, 0, 0.05, 0.5, and 2 percent. Panel C and D display bar graphs of percent migration at twelve and twenty-four hours for HFF and HUVECs cells, respectively, indicating increased migration with higher concentrations. Panel E shows microscopic images of cell migration assays at twelve and twenty-four hours for different concentrations. Panel F displays a bar graph of cell density at twelve and twenty-four hours, reflecting increased density with higher G-D concentrations. Statistical significance is highlighted with asterisks.
“There was a mistake in Figure S3 as published. Figure S3/G-D 0.05%/Kidney was inappropriately reused to represent a different experimental result in Figure S3/G-D 2%/Kidney. The corrected Figure S3 appears below.”
“There was a mistake in Figure S4 as published. The time points were not included in Figure S4A. The corrected caption of Figure S4 appears below.”
Generative AI statement
Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.
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.
Edited and reviewed by:Chaenyung Cha, Ulsan National Institute of Science and Technology, Republic of Korea