Correction to “Injectable Self-Oxygenating Cardio-Protective and Tissue Adhesive Silk-Based Hydrogel for Alleviating Ischemia After MI Injury”

Abstract

S. Hassan, Z. Rezaei, E. Luna, et al. Small. 20 (2024), 2312261. https://doi.org/10.1002/smll.202312261

In Figure 2k some images were incorrectly placed (TSF/SDF) for the SEM results. The figure below shows the correct images. These corrections do not affect the conclusion of the publication.

Figure 2

Open in figure viewerPowerPoint

Mechanical properties, synthesis, and oxygen release kinetics of TA-Alg and SF-based hydrogels. A) Schematics of oxygen release from CPO hydrolysis in an OMP upon contact with water. B) Representative SEM images and C) elemental mapping of oxygen/calcium/carbon on OMPs by EDX. D) Particle size distribution of OMPs obtained on the SEM images (B). E) Enzymatic crosslinking reaction of TA-Alg and SF materials through three possible chemical bonding (TAs on TA-Alg, TA on TA-Alg with Tyr on SF, and Tyrs on SF) in the TSF conjugate hydrogel. SDFs were conjugated to Tyr on SF and TA on TA-Alg. F) Rheological behavior of in situ crosslinked TA-Alg, mixture of TA-Alg and SF protein after adding HRP/H2O2 to evaluate gelation time. The ratios represent TA-Alg:SF ratios. G) Stress–strain curves of TSF hydrogels consisting of TA-Alg:SF in different ratios and in the presence or absence of OMPs and SDF. H) Compression Strength, I) Compressive Modulus, and J) Failure Strain obtained from the stress-strain curves in (G). K) SEM images of TSF hydrogels at 1:1 ratio of TA-Alg and SF with OMPs (TSF/OMP) or SDF (TSF/SDF), or both (TSF/OMP/SDF). High-magnified SEM images reveal OMPs in the TSF/OMP hydrogel. L) Porosity and M) pore size diameter of the hydrogels presented in (K). (n = 3; ^****p < 0.0001, ^***p < 0.001, ^**p < 0.01, ^*p < 0.05).

In Figure 4F, the Day 1 and Day 14 Live/Dead panels for TSF/OMP/SDF in Anoxia condition showed an overlap. Figure below shows the two days for the studied group with correct images. These corrections do not affect the conclusion of the publication.

Figure 4

Open in figure viewerPowerPoint

Determination of cell viability, proliferation, and endothelialization of endothelial cells on TSF hydrogel constructs. Live/Dead micrographs, CD31 expression, and Ki-67 staining of HUVECs on TSF gels in Normoxia A) and Anoxia F), respectively. B,G) Quantification of cell viability from (A) and (F), respectively. C,H) Quantitative expression of Ki-67 and D,I) CD31 from HUVEC cells on TSF gels under Normoxia and Anoxia, respectively. (E,J) represents the normalized quantitative metabolic activity via Presto Blue assay expressed by HUVECs on TSF hydrogels under Normoxia and Anoxia, respectively. Scale bars A and F = 100 µm; inset = 20 µm. (n = 3, p-values were calculated using one-way ANOVA with Tukey significant difference post hoc test, ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001, ^****p < 0.0001).

In Figure 6a-ii One image for the CD31/DAPI staining was repeated and incorrectly placed under two studied groups: Saline and TSF/OMP. Figure below shows the correct images. These corrections do not affect the conclusion of the publication.

Figure 6

Open in figure viewerPowerPoint

In vivo characterization of explants 21 days post-implantation at the infarct area. Representative images of Ai) TUNEL, ii) CD31, iii) HIF-1α, iv) CD34, v) C-kit, and vi) SDF staining from the left ventricular ischemic region at 3-week post-injection. B) Quantification of apoptosis rate by expression of TUNEL-positive nuclei. C) Number of vessels per High Power Field (HPF) among the treatment groups and D) average vessel diameter among groups. E) HIF-1α stained area among groups. F) CD34+ cells, G) c-Kit+, and H) cell staining for SDF. (n = 2–5; (Saline n = 2, TSF n = 4, TSF/OMP n = 5, TSF/SDF n = 4, TSF/OMP/SDF n = 5); ^*p < 0.05, ^**p < 0.01, ^***p < 0.001, ^****p < 0.0001).

We apologize for this error.