Correction: Fluorescence resonance energy transfer enhanced photothermal and photodynamic antibacterial therapy post a single injection

Lei Xue; Qing Shen; Tian Zhang; Yibin Fan; Xiaogang Xu; Jinjun Shao; Dongliang Yang; Wenli Zhao; Xiaochen Dong; Xiaozhou Mou

doi:10.1039/D3QM90037A

View PDF VersionPrevious ArticleNext Article

Open Access Article

This Open Access Article is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported Licence

DOI: 10.1039/D3QM90037A (Correction) Mater. Chem. Front., 2023, 7, 2493-2495

Correction: Fluorescence resonance energy transfer enhanced photothermal and photodynamic antibacterial therapy post a single injection

Lei Xue ^a, Qing Shen ^a, Tian Zhang ^a, Yibin Fan ^b, Xiaogang Xu ^c, Jinjun Shao *^a, Dongliang Yang ^a, Wenli Zhao ^a, Xiaochen Dong *^a and Xiaozhou Mou *^d
^aKey Laboratory of Flexible Electronics (KLOFE) & Institute of Advanced Materials (IAM), Nanjing Tech University (NanjingTech), Nanjing 211816, China. E-mail: iamjjshao@njtech.edu.cn; iamxcdong@njtech.edu.cn
^bDepartment of Dermatology, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou 310014, China
^cDepartment of Geriatrics, Zhejiang Provincial Key Lab of Geriatrics & Geriatrics Institute of Zhejiang Province, Zhejiang Hospital, Hangzhou 310013, China
^dClinical Research Institute, Zhejiang Provincial People's Hospital, Affiliated People's Hospital, Hangzhou Medical College, Hangzhou 310014, China. E-mail: mouxz@zju.edu.cn

Received 10th May 2023 , Accepted 10th May 2023

First published on 26th May 2023

Abstract

Correction for ‘Fluorescence resonance energy transfer enhanced photothermal and photodynamic antibacterial therapy post a single injection’ by Lei Xue et al., Mater. Chem. Front., 2021, 5, 6061–6070, https://doi.org/10.1039/D1QM00631B.

The authors regret that some errors have been identified in Fig. 4 and 7 of the original article.

Incorrect images were used for the bacterial viability of NDIA@PEG-Ce6/B at 808 nm, shown in Fig. 4(b) and in the agar plate photographs of MRSA treated with ‘NDIA@PEG-Ce6/B + 808 nm Laser’, shown in Fig. 4(d).


	Fig. 4 (a and c) Bacterial viability ratio of MRSA receiving treatments with different concentrations of NDIA@PEG-Ce6/B NPs with and without laser irradiation and the corresponding agar plate photographs. (b and d) Bacterial survival rate and the corresponding agar plate photographs of MRSA treated with a single laser or dual lasers. Confocal images of PBS, NDIA@PEG-Ce6 NPs and NDIA@PEG-Ce6/B NPs incubated with MRSA and fixed by 2.5% glutaraldehyde (scale bar: 10 μm). (e) PI and SYTO 9 staining of MRSA. Group 1–8: PBS, PBS + 808 nm, PBS + 660 nm, PBS + 808 nm + 660 nm, NDIA@PEG-Ce6/B NPs, NDIA@PEG-Ce6/B NPs + 808 nm, NDIA@PEG-Ce6/B NPs + 660 nm, NDIA@PEG-Ce6/B NPs + 808 nm + 660 nm (scale bar: 50 μm).

Incorrect images were used to demonstrate the H&E-stained image for group 4 (column 4: row 1 & row 2) and MASSON-stained image for group 3 (column 3: row 3 & row 4) in Fig. 7.


	Fig. 7 Histological analysis after 3 and 12 days of treatment (scale bar: 100 μm).

The correct versions of these figures are shown here. The data analysis and conclusions for this work remain unchanged.

The Royal Society of Chemistry apologises for these errors and any consequent inconvenience to authors and readers.