Correction to: NPG Asia Materials

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41427-018-0052-3 published online 06 June 2018

The published version of this article contains errors in Fig. 5a, Fig. 6a and Fig. 7a.

  1. 1.

    In the donor (−) group of Fig. 5a the SEM images of platelets on the samples of 12.5 and 50 are the same. However, this mistake would not cause comprehension difficulty and affect the present conclusions. Because there were no NO releasing between these two groups without the supplement of donor. Thus the adhesion and spreading of platelets on these samples were almost the same.

  2. 2.

    In the donor (+) group of Fig. 6a, the fluorescence staining of HUASMCs on the samples of 25 and 50 are the same. However, this mistake would not cause comprehension difficulty and affect the present conclusions. The result of CCK-8 (Fig. 6c) showed no significant difference of cell viability for these two groups. Moreover, as we reported recently1, the surface releasing NO with a rate above 4 × 10−10 mol cm−2 min−1 show little difference of inhibition efficiency of HUSMCs. The catalytic generating NO rate of both sample of 25 and 50 are above 4 × 10−10 mol cm−2 min−1 in this study.

  3. 3.

    In the donor (−) group of Fig. 7a, the rhodamine staining images of HUVECs (2 h) on the samples of 3.125 and 6.25 are the same, as well as the 12.5 and 25. However, this mistake would not cause comprehension difficulty and affect the present conclusions, because there were no NO releasing for these groups, thus it has little difference on adhesion and proliferation of HUVECs between these groups.

Fig. 5: Adhesion and cGMP concentration of platelets incubated in platelet rich plasma (PRP) with and without addition of NO donor of GSNO (10 μM), GSH (10 μM), and collagen (50 μg/mL).
figure 5

A SEM images and B cGMP concentration of platelets on samples incubated in PRP without (Left) and with (Right) supplement of NO donor for 30 min. Data presented as mean ± SD (n = 4) and analyzed using a one–way ANOVA, ***p < 0.001.

Full size image
Fig. 6: Adhesion and proliferation of HUASMCs incubated in cell culture media with and without addition of NO donor (10 μM GSNO, 10 μM GSH).
figure 6

A Fluorescence staining of HUASMCs cultured on the samples for 2 h. B cGMP synthesized by HUASMCs cultured in cell media without (left) and with (right) addition of NO donor for 2 h. Proliferation of HUASMCs cultured in cell media without (C) and with (D) addition of NO donor for 24 and 72 h. Data presented as mean ± SD (n = 4) and analyzed using a one-way ANOVA, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Full size image
Fig. 7: Adhesion and proliferation of HUVECs incubated in cell cultured media with and without addition of NO donor (10 μM GSNO, 10 μM GSH).
figure 7

A Rhodamine staining, B cell count (calculated from at least 12 images) and C projected area per cell (it is calculated from at least 100 cells from six different fields) of HUVECs cultured on the samples for 2 h. Proliferation of HUVECs cultured in cell media (C) with and (D) without addition of NO donor for 24 and 72 h. Data presented as mean ± SD (n = 4) and analyzed using a one-way ANOVA, *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001.

Full size image

Considering all the mistakes will not affect the conclusion of this study, we want to replace the wrong images with the correct ones that provide below but would not do any change to the text.

The original article has been corrected.

The authors apologize for these errors!