Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-55900-1, published online 19 May 2024
The original version of this Article contained errors.
In the Materials and Methods Section, Under the Subheading ‘In Silico Analysis’, the Subsection ‘Calibration Plot for 5-FU in Distilled Water and Phosphate Buffer at pH 7.4’ has been added.
Under the subheading ‘In vitro analysis: release of 5-FU from nanoparticles’,
“The experiment was performed in triplicate, ensuring robust and reliable outcomes37,38.”
now reads:
“The experiment was performed in triplicate, ensuring robust and reliable outcomes23,37.”
In the Results and interpretations section, under the subheading ‘Zeta analysis of HA-ThCs nanoparticles’,
“The results of Empty HA-ThCs-NPs and HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs in a triplicate manner are shown in Fig. 4 and Table 3. For Empty HA-ThCs-NPs, the mean smallest nanoparticle size was 396.2 nm, ZP 15.1 mV with PDI of 0.52. On the other hand, the HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs showed 339.4 nm, ZP 18.1 mV with PDI of 0.36. The results of PDI less than 0.5 show particles' uniform dissemination in the nanoformulation. However, the results above 0.5 show heterogeneous diversity among particle sizes.”
now reads:
“The results of Empty HA-ThCs-NPs and HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs in a triplicate manner are shown in Figure 4 and Table 3. For Empty HA-ThCs-NPs, the mean smallest nanoparticle size was 309.2 nm, ZP 7.85 mV with PDI of 1.0. On the other hand, the HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs showed 327 nm, ZP 8.96 mV with PDI of 1.0. The results of PDI less than 1.0 show particles' uniform dissemination in the nanoformulation. However, the results above 1.0 show heterogeneous diversity among particle sizes.”
Under the subheading ‘Stability studies’,
“The characterization of the reconstituted extemporaneous liquid formulation revealed a slight alteration in particle size, which increased from 339.9 nm to 387.3 nm, with the PDI shifting from 0.36 to 0.59, and the zeta potential changing from 18.1 to 16.4 mV, as depicted in Fig. 11A (left).”
now reads:
“The characterization of the reconstituted extemporaneous liquid formulation revealed a slight alteration in particle size, which increased from 69.7 nm, with the PDI shifting from 0.6, and the zeta potential changing from − 10.6 mV, as depicted in Figure 11A (left).”
“However, when the characterization was performed for nanoparticles stored in a liquid form, significant changes were observed in particle size, which increased from 339.9 nm to 614.3 nm, with the PDI moving from 0.36 to 0.40 and the zeta potential shifting from 18.1 to − 23.7 mV, as illustrated in Fig. 11B (left).”
now reads:
“However, when the characterization was performed for nanoparticles stored in a liquid form, significant changes were observed in particle size, which increased with 1735 nm, with the PDI moving from 1 and the zeta potential shifting − 10.3 mV, as illustrated in Figure 11B (left).”
In addition, Tables 1 and 3 contained errors. In Table 1, the “Particle size nm”, “PDI” and “Zeta Potential +/−mV” for Run 5 were incorrect. The incorrect and correct values appear below.
Incorrect:
Run | HA (mg) | TC (mg) | 5-FU (mg) | Particle size (nm) | PDI | Zeta potential ( +/−mV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 25.00 | 60.00 | 0.10 | 339.4 | 0.36 | 18.1 |
Correct:
Run | HA (mg) | TC (mg) | 5-FU (mg) | Particle size (nm) | PDI | Zeta potential ( +/−mV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
5 | 25.00 | 60.00 | 0.10 | 327 | 1 | 8.96 |
In Table 3, the “Particle Size (nm)”, “PDI” and “Zeta Potential (mV)” were incorrect. The incorrect and correct values appear below.
Incorrect:
Sr | Formulations | Particle size (nm) | PDI | Zeta potential (mV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Empty HA-ThCs-NPs | 396.2 | 0.52 | 15.1 |
2 | HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs | 339.4 | 0.36 | 18.1 |
Correct:
Sr | Formulations | Particle size (nm) | PDI | Zeta potential (mV) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Empty HA-ThCs-NPs | 309 | 1.0 | 7.85 |
2 | HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs | 327 | 1.0 | 8.96 |
Additionally, Figures 4, 5, 9 and 11 contained errors due to the aforementioned wrong values. The original Figures and accompanying legends appear below.
Particle size, matrix PDI (left) and zeta potential (right) of Empty HA-ThCs-NPs (A) and HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs (B) (mean + SD).
SEM images (A: upper) show spherical and smooth surfaces of nanoparticles of Empty HA-ThCs and (B: upper) HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs at the scale of 5.0um while the TEM images (A: lower) showed more precise images of spherical and smooth surfaces of Empty HA-ThCs and (B: lower) HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs at scale of 50 nm and 200 nm23,24,35.
Kinetic models on 5-FU released from nanoparticles at pH 7.4 (A) and 6.8 (B) following Higuchi diffusion model23,24,35.
Reconstituted extemporaneous liquid formulation of HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs (A) particle size, PDI and zeta potential (left) and SEM analysis (right). Liquid formulation stored for 3 months (B) particle size, PDI and zeta potential (left) and SEM analysis (right) (mean + SD)24,35,38.
Furthermore, the legends of Figures 3, 5 and 6 contained errors.
Figure 3. Nanoparticle size (A), PDI (B), and Zeta potential (C) considerations in a Box-Behnken factorial design using DOE using results by dependent parameters to optimize nanoparticle formulation parameters.
now reads:
Figure 3: Nanoparticle size (A), PDI (B), and Zeta potential (C) considerations in a Box-Behnken factorial design using DOE using results by dependent parameters to optimize nanoparticle formulation parameters24,35,38.
Figure 5. SEM images (A: upper) show spherical and smooth surfaces of nanoparticles of Empty HA-ThCs and (B: upper) HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs at the scale of 5.0um while the TEM images (A: lower) showed more precise images of spherical and smooth surfaces of Empty HA-ThCs and (B: lower) HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs at scale of 50 nm and 200 nm23,24,35.
now reads:
Figure 5: SEM images (A: upper) show spherical and smooth surfaces of nanoparticles of Empty HA-ThCs and (B: upper) HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs at the scale of 5.0um while the TEM images (C) showed more precise image of HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs at scale of 50 nm24,35,38.
Figure 6. Functional group analysis of (A, a) Empty HA-ThCs and (B, b) HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs (Upper graphs for FTIR and lower graphs showed XRD analysis)23,24,35.
now reads:
Figure 6: Functional group analysis of (A, a) Empty HA-ThCs and (B, b) HA-coated 5-FU in ThCs-NPs (Upper graphs for FTIR and lower graphs showed XRD analysis)24,35,38.
The original Article has been corrected.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Anjum, S., Naseer, F., Ahmad, T. et al. Publisher Correction: Enhancing therapeutic efficacy: sustained delivery of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) via thiolated chitosan nanoparticles targeting CD44 in triple-negative breast cancer. Sci Rep 14, 17125 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67606-5
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67606-5
