On page 2511 in the 1 October 2003 issue, there is an error in Figure 7B. Panel Bi, nontreated MCF7 cells, was inadvertently duplicated in panel Biv, MCF7 cells treated with nonspecific scFv-TAT. The morphology of cells treated with nonspecific scFv-TAT was indeed similar to that of nontreated cells, as stated in the article. This error in no way affects the conclusions of the article. The corrected Figure 7 is shown. The authors apologize for this mistake.
Induction of apoptosis in RBL and MCF7 cells after treatment with anti–Bcl-2-scFv-TAT. Cells were exposed to anti–Bcl-2-scFv-TAT or nonspecific scFv-TAT for 72 hours. Apoptosis was determined by TUNEL assay and the cells were observed under a fluorescent microscope at ×40 magnification. Untreated RBL (Ai) and MCF7 (Bi) cells. RBL (Aii) and MCF7 (Bii) cells exposed to DNaseI as positive control. The cells show DNA fragmentation and fluorescent labeling. RBL (Aiii) and MCF7 (Biii) cells treated with anti–Bcl-2-scFv-TAT. The nuclei of the cells show fragmentation and fluorescent staining. RBL (Aiv) and MCF7 (Biv) cells treated with nonspecific scFv-TAT. The cells show morphologic similarity to untreated cells.
Induction of apoptosis in RBL and MCF7 cells after treatment with anti–Bcl-2-scFv-TAT. Cells were exposed to anti–Bcl-2-scFv-TAT or nonspecific scFv-TAT for 72 hours. Apoptosis was determined by TUNEL assay and the cells were observed under a fluorescent microscope at ×40 magnification. Untreated RBL (Ai) and MCF7 (Bi) cells. RBL (Aii) and MCF7 (Bii) cells exposed to DNaseI as positive control. The cells show DNA fragmentation and fluorescent labeling. RBL (Aiii) and MCF7 (Biii) cells treated with anti–Bcl-2-scFv-TAT. The nuclei of the cells show fragmentation and fluorescent staining. RBL (Aiv) and MCF7 (Biv) cells treated with nonspecific scFv-TAT. The cells show morphologic similarity to untreated cells.
This feature is available to Subscribers Only
Sign In or Create an Account Close Modal