Developmental Cell 10, 273, February, 2006 ª2006 Elsevier Inc.
Erratum
The Regulation of Notch Signaling Controls Satellite Cell Activation and Cell Fate Determination in Postnatal Myogenesis Irina M. Conboy1,3 and Thomas A. Rando1,2,* 1 Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences Stanford University School of Medicine Stanford, California 2 GRECC and Neurology Service VA Palo Alto Health Care System Palo Alto, California *Correspondence:
[email protected] 3 Present address: Department of Bioengineering, UC Berkeley, Evans 479, Berkeley, CA
(Developmental Cell 3, 397–409; September 2002) In this article, we described Numb expression patterns during satellite cell activation based on Western blot analysis (Figure 2A) using an antibody obtained from Pharmingen/BD Biosciences (clone 48). These data indicated that Numb expression was high in quiescent cells, declined rapidly during the first 24-48 hr ex vivo, and then increased again over time in culture. This clone was subsequently discontinued when Rivolta and Holley (2002) demonstrated that the antibody was specific for the unrelated protein, Mortalin, which coincidentally has a nearly identical molecular weight to that of Numb. When this was brought to our attention, we repeated our experiments with a Numb-specific polyclonal antibody (AbCam/Novus Biologicals (Cat. # ab4147)). These studies revealed that Numb is undetectable in quiescent satellite cells and increases with time in culture (Figure 1). All the other studies of Numb expression and localization in Conboy and Rando (2002) used an antibody provided as a gift by Dr. Weimin Zhong (as reported in the original manuscript) and have been confirmed with the antibody from AbCam. We apologize for any confusion we have caused.
Figure 1. Expression of Numb during Satellite Cell Activation
Reference Rivolta, M.N., and Holley, M.C. (2002). Asymmetric segregation of mitochondria and mortalin correlates with the multi-lineage potential of inner ear sensory cell progenitors in vitro. Brain Res. Dev. Brain Res. 133, 49–56.
DOI 10.1016/j.devcel.2006.01.003