Front. Immunol. Frontiers in Immunology Front. Immunol. 1664-3224 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1732897 Correction Correction: Leukocyte dynamics in Cynomolgus monkeys following heterotopic heart allotransplantation under costimulation pathway blockade BraileanuGheorghe 1 ‡ Conceptualization Data curation Visualization Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing AzimzadehAgnes M. 1 2 ‡ § Writing – original draft ZhangTianshu 1 Writing – original draft BurdorfLars 1 2 † Writing – original draft PiersonRichard N.III 1 2 * ‡ Writing – original draft Writing – review & editing Department of Surgery, University of Maryland Medical Center, Baltimore, MD, United States Division of Cardiac Surgery, Department of Surgery and Center for Transplantation Science, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, United States Correspondence: Richard N. Pierson III, rpierson@mgh.harvard.edu

Present address: Lars Burdorf, Revivicor, Inc, Blacksburg, VA, United States

These authors have contributed equally to this work

§Deceased

 03 12 2025 2025 16 1732897 26 10 2025 03 11 2025 Copyright © 2025 Braileanu, Azimzadeh, Zhang, Burdorf and Pierson. 2025 Braileanu, Azimzadeh, Zhang, Burdorf and Pierson https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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. A Correction on Leukocyte dynamics in Cynomolgus monkeys following heterotopic heart allotransplantation under costimulation pathway blockade By Braileanu G, Azimzadeh AM, Zhang T, Burdorf L and Pierson III RN (2025) Front. Immunol. 16:1664463. doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2025.1664463 leucocyte dynamics cynomolgus macaque heart heterotopic allotransplantation intragraft lymphocytes T cells subpopulation section-at-acceptance Alloimmunity and Transplantation

There was a mistake in Table 4 as published. The misplacement of horizontal lines in column 1 changes repartition of events in each compartment making it impossible to substantiate interpretations of data from the results section. In addition, the published PDF table is spread on 3 pages instead of one (as it was initially submitted or as it appears on my projects site); it should be on one page. Besides, in published PDF format the horizontal and vertical lines specifically indicated in Q11 are not bold, making it very difficult to read the table. The corrected Table 4 appears below.

Cluster analysis of CD3 CD127lowCD25highFoxp3+ cells subpopulations.

For each monkey (rows) for each corresponding sample, flow cytometry results for CD3 population were downsized to same number of 10 000 cells as described (SI-4 step 5). For further analysis of the 62 unmerged files (No samples obtained for 3 BL and 10 EXP LN) it was used SOM tool of FCSExpress 7. Each CD127lowCD25highFoxp3+ cells subpopulation (CD8, CD4, CD4+CD8+) were divided into 14 clusters (columns) as illustrated.

For CD4+CD8+ CD127lowCD25highFoxp3+ cells in GILS it was observed a significant difference (p<0.001), regarding the size of cluster 2 (bold) that included a mean of 82 cells, compared with PB where the same cluster consists of only 8 cells, or LN that included 6 cells. In cluster 3 (bold) the differences were smaller (17 cells in GILS, compared with 3 in PB and 1 in LN) but still significant (p<0.05). Likewise, for CD8+CD127lowCD25highFoxp3+ cells, the number in GILS (bold) was increased (p<0.01) in clusters 1, 3, and 5 compared with PB or LNs.

Also, there was a mistake in the caption of Table 4 as published. Some numbers are wrong: …5-replace with 8; eight-replace with 6; 1 replace with 3; 2.7-replace with 1; Some abbreviations were misplaced: … blood-replace with PB; add “PB or” in front of LNs.

“For each monkey (rows) for each corresponding sample, flow cytometry results for CD3 population were downsized to same number of 10–000 cells as described (SI-4 step 5). For further analysis of the 62 unmerged files (No samples obtained for 3 BL and 10 EXP LN) it was used SOM tool of FCSExpress 7. Each CD127 lowCD25 highFoxp3+ cells subpopulation (CD8, CD4, CD4+CD8+) were divided into 14 clusters (columns) as illustrated.

For CD4+CD8+ CD127lowCD25highFoxp3+ cells in GILS it was observed a significant difference (p<0.001), regarding the size of cluster 2 (bold) that included a mean of 82 cells, compared with PB where the same cluster consists of only 5 cells, or LN that included 8 cells. In cluster 3 (bold) the differences were smaller (17 cells in GILS, compared with 1 in blood and 2.7 in LN) but still significant (p<0.05). Likewise, for CD8+CD127lowCD25highFoxp3+ cells, the number in GILS (bold) was increased (p<0.01) in clusters 1, 3, and 5 compared with LNs.”

The corrected caption of Table 4 appears below.

“For each monkey (rows) for each corresponding sample, flow cytometry results for CD3 population were downsized to same number of 10–000 cells as described (SI-4 step 5). For further analysis of the 62 unmerged files (No samples obtained for 3 BL and 10 EXP LN) it was used SOM tool of FCSExpress 7. Each CD127lowCD25highFoxp3+ cells subpopulation (CD8, CD4, CD4+CD8+) were divided into 14 clusters (columns) as illustrated.

For CD4+CD8+ CD127lowCD25highFoxp3+ cells in GILS it was observed a significant difference (p<0.001), regarding the size of cluster 2 (bold) that included a mean of 82 cells, compared with PB where the same cluster consists of only 8 cells, or LN that included 6 cells. In cluster 3 (bold) the differences were smaller (17 cells in GILS, compared with 3 in PB and 1 in LN) but still significant (p<0.05). Likewise, for CD8+CD127lowCD25highFoxp3+ cells, the number in GILS (bold) was increased (p<0.01) in clusters 1, 3, and 5 compared with PB or LNs.”

The original version of this 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: Stanislaw Stepkowski, University of Toledo, United States