Open Access Article
This Open Access Article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence
Correction: Opposite responses of normal hepatocytes and hepatocellular carcinoma cells to substrate viscoelasticity
Kalpana
Mandal
*a,
Ze
Gong
b,
Alexis
Rylander
a,
Vivek B.
Shenoy
b and
Paul A.
Janmey
*a
aInstitute for Medicine and Engineering, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104, USA. E-mail: mandalk@pennmedicine.upenn.edu; janmey@pennmedicine.upenn.edu
bDepartment of Mechanical Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104, USA
First published on 10th March 2020
Abstract
Correction for ‘Opposite responses of normal hepatocytes and hepatocellular carcinoma cells to substrate viscoelasticity’ by Kalpana Mandal et al., Biomater. Sci., 2020, 8, 1316–1328.
After publication, the authors found an error in Fig. 5(b and c) in the main paper. The corrected Fig. 5 is shown below.
 | ||
Fig. 5 Model explains the viscoelastic regulation results for different cells. (A) Schematic of motor clutch model for a cell spreading on an elastic or viscoelastic substrate (collagen I coated only on elastic PAA components). Myosin motors pull the actin bundle towards the cell center at a retrograde flow velocity Vf. Clutches connect the actin bundle to the substrate based on the reaction rates ron and roff and resist the retrograde flow. The spreading speed Vs is the difference between polymerization speed Vp and retrograde flow Vf. The viscoelastic substrate is represented as a generalized Maxwell model with two relaxation timescales  . (B–C) Spreading speed Vs of PHH cells (B) and Huh7 cells (C) on elastic (black) and viscoelastic (orange) substrates. Error bars represent the standard deviation (N = 10 simulations). | ||
The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.
| This journal is © The Royal Society of Chemistry 2020 |