1. Cell Biology
Download icon

Correction: Nuclear receptor LRH-1/NR5A2 is required and targetable for liver endoplasmic reticulum stress resolution

Correction
  • Cited 3
  • Views 505
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2015;4:e10084 doi: 10.7554/eLife.10084

Main text

Mamrosh JL, Lee JM, Wagner M, Stambrook PJ, Whitby RJ, Sifers RN, Wu SP, Tsai MJ, DeMayo FJ, Moore DD. 2014. Nuclear receptor LRH-1/NR5A2 is required and targetable for liver endoplasmic reticulum stress resolution. eLife 3:e01694. doi: 10.7554/eLife.01694

Published 15 April 2014

During quality control of our microarray dataset GSE68718 for inclusion in the NURSA Transcriptomine database (Ochsner et al. Physiol. Genomics 44, 853–863), we noticed a significant effect of the vehicle for DLPC (a 4:1 mixture of PEG-400 and Tween-80 delivered to mice by oral gavage twice daily) on gene expression. Genes most affected were generally those already induced strongly by tunicamycin. We did not detect this vehicle effect in previous experiments not utilizing ER stressors, indicating that this vehicle may behave unexpectedly in the context of ER stress. Unfortunately, this confounds the normalization and statistical assessment of the vehicle and vehicle + DLPC components of the dataset and we have therefore removed these data from Table 1 in our manuscript and from GSE68718. We did not observe similar effects of the vehicle (DMSO) for the LRH-1 agonist RJW100 on ER stress-induced gene expression in primary hepatocytes. Therefore, this correction does not conflict with our previous conclusions that LRH-1 agonism results in the induction of LRH-1 and ATF-2 target genes and promotes cell survival during ER stress. An outside analysis of the main microarray data presented in this paper (Table 1 excluding DLPC data and Figure 4) found the conclusions drawn to be accurate.

This article has been corrected accordingly. We apologize for the mistake.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Jennifer L Mamrosh

    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Jae Man Lee

    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Martin Wagner

    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Peter J Stambrook

    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Richard J Whitby

    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Richard N Sifers

    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. San-Pin Wu

    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Ming-Jer Tsai

    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Francesco J DeMayo

    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. David D Moore

    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published: July 24, 2015 (version 1)

Copyright

© 2015, Mamrosh et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 505
    Page views
  • 17
    Downloads
  • 3
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, PubMed Central, Scopus.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)