- © 2005 American Society of Plant Biologists
The authors of the articles listed below discovered an error in a spreadsheet developed by their laboratory. This error resulted in an incorrect conversion of radioactive counts to the appropriate molar units. The absence of a 1,000-fold difference led them to report their auxin transport values as pmol instead of reporting them correctly as fmol. The following articles were affected by this conversion error.
Vol. 122: 481–490
Rashotte A.M., Brady S.R., Reed R.C., Ante S.J., and Muday G.K. Basipetal Auxin Transport Is Required for Gravitropism in Roots of Arabidopsis.
The units of radioactive indole-3-acetic acid transport were mislabeled in Figure 3 and Tables II and IV, as were the units of radiolabeled benzoic acid in Tables II and IV. Both control and experimental values should have been reported as fmol rather than pmol. This change in units does not alter the interpretation of the data since all experiments had internal controls.
Vol. 133: 761–772
Rashotte A.M., Poupart J., Waddell C.S., and Muday G.K. Transport of the Two Natural Auxins, Indole-3-Butyric Acid and Indole-3-Acetic Acid, in Arabidopsis.
The units of radioactive indole-3-acetic acid and indole-3-butyric acid transport were mislabeled in Figures 1 to 4 and Tables I to III and in the text on page 764. Both control and experimental values should have been reported as fmol rather than pmol. This change in units does not alter the interpretation of the data since all experiments had internal controls. The one exception to this change is the inflorescence transport data reported in Table I, which are correctly reported as pmol and are consistent with greater amounts of indole-3-acetic acid transport in the inflorescence. Additionally, the higher number of counts in the inflorescence data in Table I is also due to the higher amounts of radioactive auxin added. The amount of added radioactivity in this continuous pulse of auxin in the inflorescence assay was incorrectly reported in the methods as 100 nm and should have been reported as 333 nm.
