Corresponding author BS has indicated that the images used in Fig 4C of 1 are separately captured images of the same harvested Matrigel section as shown in Fig 5Ea and 5Eb of 2, with different ...magnifications. * In Fig 4B of 1, the lower right-hand Matrigel image panel with scale 10μm (described in the caption as human dermal-derived fibroblasts) is incorrect and is a higher magnification image of the same tissue shown in the BM “MSCs” Matrigel image panel in Fig 5Fb of 2. * A region on the right-hand side of the hSpectrin Laminin Dapi panel of Fig 5D of 1 reported to show myofibers of SCID/beige/CTX (cardiotoxin) injured mice, when flipped vertically and rotated appears similar to part of the lower right-hand panel of Fig 5D of 2 reported to show myofibers from SCID/mdx mice. In response to these concerns, corresponding author BS indicated that the study reported in 2 was a preliminary approach to questions around non-canonical myogenic progenitors and that the PLOS ONE article 1 addressed further pending questions, offering advances including: * A direct comparison of the explant culture vs CD-146+-enriched populations, in terms of myogenic potential, frequency of myogenic cells and expression of markers; and * The finding that in vivo transplanted human muscle-derived CD146+ multi-clonal cell strain immunoreactivity of CD146 was restricted to microvascular walls of the interstitial tissue. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. * There are also several references to “Data not shown” in support of statements in the originally published article, which is not permitted under PLOS ONE’s editorial policies.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
