Correction to: Nature Reviews Cancer https://doi.org/10.1038/nrc2902, published online 19 August 2010.

Several sections of the Review should have given attribution to previously published articles.

In the third paragraph of the sub-section ‘Automated analysis of protein expression in tissue’ (page 606 in the PDF), the sentence beginning “In particular, attention has centred on the intrinsic lack of reproducibility of manual IHC scoring…” should also have cited reference 22.

In Box 1 (page 607 in the PDF), the sentence beginning ‘Based on the selection of regions…’ in the first paragraph and the first two sentences of the second paragraph should have also cited reference 7.

In Box 2 (page 608 in the PDF), several sentences should have cited additional references:

  • In the second paragraph, the sentences beginning “In the typical double antibody sandwich…” and “Each bead set is coated…” should have also cited reference 47.

  • In the last paragraph, the sentences beginning “Two categories of antibody microarray…” and “In the direct labelling method…” should have also cited reference 41.

In the ‘ELISA’ sub-section (pages 608–609 in the PDF), the sentences beginning “Although good correlations between ELISA…” and “Although concordance between ELISA…” should both have also cited reference 47.

In the ‘Prognostics’ sub-section (pages 611–612 in the PDF), the sentences beginning “Additionally, it has been demonstrated…” and “As these signatures demonstrated minimal overlap of genes…” should both have also cited reference 59.

In the fourth paragraph of the ‘Translating assays to the clinic’ section (page 614 in the PDF), the first four sentences should all have cited reference 117.

In the last paragraph of the ‘Translating assays to the clinic’ section (page 615 in the PDF), each sentence should have also cited reference 17.

Note that reference numbering is consistent with the list in the original article; for details of these references, please refer to the original article.