Reader Comments

Post a new comment on this article

Publisher's Note: Errors in text and figure legends in Results/Discussion section

Posted by PLOS_CompBiol on 12 Sep 2012 at 17:49 GMT

Model overview
http://ploscompbiol.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002272#article1.body1.sec2.sec1.p1

1) In ‘Results/Discussion’ under the heading ‘The cyclic-AMP (cAMP) induced glucose-glycogen circuitry’ and the subsection ‘Internal cues: cAMP activates a cascade of enzymes’, paragraph 2, the value of K_d corresponding to a fed state is incorrectly listed as 2 X 10^(-3) mM. The correct value is: 2 X 10^(-3) micro (/mu)M. Please view the correct equation here: http://www.ploscompbiol.org/corrections/pcbi.1002272.e004-e006.cn.tif

2) In the caption for Figure 6, third sentence, the values 13.4 and 30.6 are incorrectly switched. The correct sentence is: ‘Crossover of GSa and GPa occurs at 30.6 and 13.4 minutes respectively’.

3) In ‘Results/Discussion’ under the heading ‘The response time for glycogen synthesis decreases with a larger value of K_d in the glycogen depleted state’, paragraph 3, the references to Figure 6A-left panel and Figure 6B-left panel in the final two sentences are incorrectly switched. The reference to Figure 6B-right panel should precede the reference to Figure 6A-left panel.

4) In ‘Results/Discussion’ under the heading ‘The response time for glycogen synthesis decreases with a larger value of K_d in the glycogen depleted state’, paragraph 4, sentence 4, the value K_d = 2 X 10^(-3) micro M is incorrectly described as being indicated in Figure 6B by ‘a solid line with squares’. The correct description is ‘a red line with dots’.

5) In ‘Results/Discussion’ under the heading ‘The response time for glycogen synthesis decreases with a larger value of K_d in the glycogen depleted state’, paragraph 4, final sentence, the intersection of GSa and GPa is incorrectly given as “15 mins and 30.6 mins correspondingly”. The correct values are: “13.4 mins and 30.6 mins correspondingly”.

6) In ‘Results/Discussion’ under the heading ‘Conclusions’, paragraph 2, the penultimate sentence incorrectly mentions ‘a significant increase in response time’. The correct text is: ‘a significant decrease in response time’.

The authors would like to thank Andrey Dovzhenok of the University of Cincinnati for alerting them to these errors.

No competing interests declared.