Following the publication of the above paper, a concerned reader drew to the authors' attention that, in Fig. 4C on p. 8, the 'Invasion, miR‑675‑inhibitor' data panel appeared to contain an overlapping section with the 'Invasion, mi‑R675‑inhibitor + pcDNA3.1‑H19' data panel for the SCL1 cell line, such that the data were likely to have been derived from the same original source, even though they were intended to show the results from differently performed experiments. After having examined the original data, the authors also realized that the 'Inhibitor‑NC' and 'miR‑675‑inhibitor' data panels showing the migration assay experiments for the A431 cell line in the same figure part had also inadvertently been derived from the same original source. After having been granted permission from the Editor of Oncology Reports to repeat the experiments shown in Fig. 4C, the revised version of Fig. 4, incorporating the new data for Fig. 4C, is shown on the next page. Note that these errors did not affect the overall conclusions reported in the study, and the repeated experiment yielded similar results to those obtained originally. The authors are grateful to the Editor for allowing them the opportunity to publish this corrigendum, and all the authors agree with the publication of this; furthermore, they apologize for any inconvenience caused to the readership of the Journal. [Oncology Reports 45: 39, 2021; DOI: 10.3892/or.2021.7990].
Subsequently to the publication of the above paper, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that a pair of the data panels showing the results of Transwell invasion assays (specifically, the 'C4‑2 / shCON' and the PC‑3 / CON panels) featured in Fig. 3F on p. 927 contained overlapping sections, such that data that were intended to show the results from differently performed experiments appeared to have been derived from the same original source. The authors were able to re‑examine their original data files, and realized that this figure had been inadverently assembled incorrectly. The revised version of Fig. 3, containing the correct representative image of the PC‑3shCON group, is shown on the next page. The authors also noted that the statistics in Fig. 3G remained correct, and did not require correction on account of the error made in assembling this figure. Similarly, note that the correction made to this figure does not affect the overall conclusions reported in the paper. The authors are grateful to the Editor of Oncology Reports for allowing them the opportunity to publish this Corrigendum, and all the authors agree with its publication. They also apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 45: 921‑932, 2021; DOI: 10.3892/or.2021.7920].
Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that various panels showing data from flow cytometric experiments in Figs. 2D, 5D and 6D, and the cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Fig. 2C and 5C, were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors. Moreover, the data appeared to be overlapping comparing between a pair of the panels in Figs. 2C and 5C, such that these may have been selected from the same original source, even though the data were intended to show the results from differently performed experiments. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published, elsewhere when it was submitted to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. After having been in contact with the authors, they agreed with the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 39: 401‑410, 2018; DOI: 10.3892/or.2017.6074].
Subsequently to the publication of the above paper, the authors have realized, upon reorganizing all their original data, that errors were made during the assembly of the images in Fig. 5 on p. 8. Specifically, in Fig. 5E, the images intended to represent the 'METTL3 sh‑METTL3' and 'Bcl‑2 sg‑METTL3' immuno-histochemistry staining experiments were selected incorrectly. The revised version of Fig. 5, showing the correctly assembled data panels for the 'METTL3 sh‑METTL3' and 'Bcl‑2 sg‑METTL3' experiments in Fig. 5E, is shown on the next page. The authors sincerely apologize for the errors that were inadvertently introduced during the preparation of this Figure, thank the Editor of Oncology Reports for allowing them the opportunity to publish this Corrigendum, and regret any inconvenience that these errors may have caused to the readership. [Oncology Reports 46: 163, 2021; DOI: 10.3892/or.2021.8114].
Subsequently to the publication of this paper, the authors have realized that an error was made during the compilation of Fig. 2A as it appeared on p. 4. Essentially, the partial Q2‑3 images of the '1.56 µm' group were inadvertently copied across to the Q2‑3 images of the '3.12 µm' group, leading to the cell number of the Q2‑3 quadrant being the same for both the 1.56 µm and the 3.12 µm groups, and also leading the total cell number of the 3.12 µm group being calculated as 106.97%, which was clearly incorrect (the total percentage should have added up to 100%). The corrected version of Fig. 2, showing the correct data for the Q2‑3 images in the '3.12 µm' group, is shown on the next page. Note that this error did not significantly affect the results or the conclusions reported in this paper, and all the authors agree with the publication of this Corrigendum. The authors are grateful to the Editor of Oncology Reports for allowing them this opportunity to publish a corrigendum, and apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 46: 136, 2021; DOI: 10.3892/or.2021.8087].
Following the publication of the above paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that various panels showing data from flow cytometric experiments in Figs. 2E, 5E and 6E, and the cell migration and invasion assay data shown in Fig. 2D and 6D, were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published, elsewhere when it was submitted to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. After having been in contact with the authors, they agreed with the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 38: 1569‑1578, 2017; DOI: 10.3892/or.2017.5810].
Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that lanes 1‑3 of the EMSA results shown in Fig. 6 on p. 1278 were strikingly similar to data that had already appeared in a different form in the following publication by different authors at different research institutes: Qiu K, Li Z, Chen J, Wu S, Zhu X, Gao S, Gao J, Ren G and Zhou X: EIN3 and ORE1 accelerate degreening during ethylene‑mediated leaf senescence by directly activating chlorophyll catabolic genes in Arabidopsis. PLoS Genet 11: e1005399, 2015. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. After having been in contact with the authors, they accepted the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 35: 1273‑1280, 2016; DOI: 10.3892/or.2015.4485.
Following the publication of the above paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that certain of the western blotting data shown in Fig. 5 were strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles by different authors, some of which have been retracted. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published, elsewhere when it was submitted to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 33: 3053‑3060, 2015; DOI: 10.3892/or.2015.3895].
Subsequently to the publication of the article, an interested reader drew to the authors' attention that certain of the data panels showing the results of cell migration and invasion assays in Figs. 5A and 6C were overlapping, suggesting that the data were derived from the same original source, even though they were selected to represent the results from differently performed experiments. The authors requested that a corrigendum be published to rectify this problem; however, after having conducted an independent analysis of the data in the Editorial Office, we have noticed that the data shown in Figs. 5A and 6C are strikingly similar to data appearing in different form in other articles published in another journal, mainly written by different authors at different research institutions. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication, or had already been published, elsewhere at the time it was submitted to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. After having been in contact with the authors, they agreed with the decision to retract the paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 42: 2390‑2401, 2019; DOI: 10.3892/or.2019.7381].
Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that certain of the tumor images shown in Fig. 4G and H were strikingly similar to tumor images (albeit oriented differently) which had previously appeared in Fig. 8A in another article published in the journal International Journal of Oncology [Tang B, Li Y, Yuan S, Tomlinson S and He S: Upregulation of the δ opioid receptor in liver cancer promotes liver cancer progression both in vitro and in vivo. Int J Oncol 43: 1281‑1290, 2013], indicating that results which were purported to have been obtained under different experimental conditions had been derived from the same original source. In view of the fact that these data had already appeared in another publication prior to its submission to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 41: 43‑56, 2019; DOI: 10.3892/or.2018.6825].
Following the publication of the above paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that one of the tumor images shown in Fig. 4A was strikingly similar to a tumor image appearing in a pair of other articles that had been written by different authors at different research institutes. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published elsewhere prior to its submission to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 36: 2079‑2086, 2016; DOI: 10.3892/or.2016.5029].
Following the publication of the article, a concerned reader drew to the authors' attention that, in Fig. 1B and C on p. 316, two pairs of the data panels showing the results from invasion and migration assay experiments appeared to be overlapping, such that they would have been derived from the same original sources where they were intended to show the results from different experiments; moreover, on p. 1698, the '17‑AAG / MG‑63' data panels in Fig. 3B and C were also overlapping, albeit the images were presented at a different scale and in a slightly different orientation. After having examined their original data, the authors have realized that these figures were inadvertently assembled incorrectly. The corrected versions of Figs. 1 and 3, now showing the correct data in Fig. 1C (where the errors made in compiling the figure had occurred) and the correct data for the '17‑AAG / MG‑63' data panel in Fig. 3C, are shown on the next two pages. These corrections do not grossly affect either the results or the conclusions reported in this work. The authors all agree to the publication of this Corrigendum, and are grateful to the Editor of Oncology Reports for granting them the opportunity to correct the errors that were made during the assembly of these figures. Lastly, the authors apologize to the readership for any inconvenience these errors may have caused. [Oncology Reports 44: 313‑324, 2020; DOI: 10.3892/or.2020.7597].
Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editors' attention by a concerned reader that, for the western blots showing the CtBP1 and SOX2 bands in Fig. 5C on p. 74, the data were in fact the same, but flipped horizontally; moreover, two pairs of overlapping data panels were identified comparing between the cell invasion and assay data images shown in Figs. 3E and 6C, such that these were likely to have been derived from the same original sources even though they were intended to show the results from differently performed experiments; similarly, the 'shSOX2 / 24 h' and 'shCtBP1 / 24 h' data panels in Fig. 6B showing the results of differently performed scratch‑wound assay experiments appeared to be overlapping, albeit with one of the panels being slightly rotated relative to the other. Finally, there were erroneous calculations included for the CtBP1 expression data shown in Table III. Given the large number of apparent errors that were made during the assembly of various of the figures and Table III in this paper, the Editor of Oncology Reports has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal due to an overall lack of confidence in the presented data. After contacting the authors, they accepted the decision to retract this paper. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 42: 67‑78, 2019; DOI: 10.3892/or.2019.7142].
Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that the colony formation assay data shown in Fig. 3A on p. 3399 were strikingly similar to data that were already under consideration for publication in another article written by different authors at different research institutes. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article were already under consideration for publication prior to its submission to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a satisfactory reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 40: 3392‑3404, 2018; DOI: 10.3892/or.2018.6736].
Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that certain of the cell migration and invasion images shown in Figs. 3B and D and 6C were strikingly similar to data that had already appeared in an article written by different authors at different research institutes [Liu C, Guan H, Wang Y, Chen M, Xu B, Zhang L, Lu K, Tao T and Zhang X: miR‑195 inhibits EMT by targeting FGF2 in prostate cancer cells. PLoS One 9: e0144073, 2015]. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 37: 3305‑3312, 2017; DOI: 10.3892/or.2017.5604].
Subsequently to the publication of the above paper, the authors have drawn to the attention of the Editorial Office that a pair of the data panels showing the results of wound‑healing assay experiments (in Fig. 1A) and Transwell invasion assays (in Fig. 1B) on p. 2975 were inadvertently featured incorrectly in this figure. Specifically, in Fig. 1A, the 'nicotine + 25 μM EGCG / 0 h' data panel was erroneously copied across to represent the 'nicotine + 0 μM EGCG / 0 h' image, whereas in Fig. 1B, the representative invasion image for the 'nicotine + 10 μM EGCG' experiment was also incorrectly placed. The authors were able to re‑examine their original data files, and realize how the errors were made during the assembly of this figure. The revised version of Fig. 1, showing the correct data for the 'nicotine + 0 μM EGCG / 0 h' in Fig. 1A and the 'nicotine + 10 μM EGCG' experiment in Fig. 1B, is shown on the next page. Note that the errors made in assembling this figure did not affect the overall conclusions reported in the paper. The authors are grateful to the Editor of Oncology Reports for allowing them the opportunity to publish this Corrigendum, and all the authors agree with its publication. They also apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 33: 2972‑2980, 2015; DOI: 10.3892/or.2015.3889].
Subsequently to the publication of the above article, the authors have drawn to the attention of the Editorial Office that a few inadvertent errors were made during the assembly of Fig. 6 on p. 1802. In the first instance, the images selected to represent the A549 cell line in Fig. 6A were inadvertently shown as the data for the NCI‑H460 cell line in Fig. 6C and vice versa, and so the data shown for Fig. 6A and C have been interchanged in the revised version of this figure. Moreover, the representative image for panel '3' in Fig. 6A of the above article (and so, now panel '3' in Fig. 6C of the corrected version) was wrongly copied across from that of panel '2' in Fig. 6C (now, panel '2' in Fig. 6A of the corrected version). The authors were able to re‑examine their original data files, and realize how the errors were made during the assembly of this figure. The revised version of Fig. 6, with the data originally shown in Fig. 6A and C now interchanged, also showing the correct data for panel '3' in Fig. 6C, is shown on the next page. Note that the errors made in assembling this figure did not affect the overall conclusions reported in the paper. The authors are grateful to the Editor of Oncology Reports for allowing them the opportunity to publish this Corrigendum, and all the authors agree with its publication. They also apologize to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 37: 1793‑1803, 2017; DOI: 10.3892/or.2017.5366].
Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that the tumour images shown in Fig. 7A and certain of the cell proliferation assay images shown in Fig. 3B were strikingly similar to data that had already appeared in another article written by different authors at different research institutes [Xiao W Wang, J, Li H, Xia D, Yu G, Yao W, Yang Y, Xiao H, Lang B, Ma X et al: Fibulin‑1 is epigenetically down‑regulated and related with bladder cancer recurrence. BMC Cancer 14: 677, 2014]. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncol Rep 38: 2435‑2443, 2017; DOI: 10.3892/or.2017.5884].
Following the publication of this paper, it was drawn to the Editor's attention by a concerned reader that the cell formation assay data shown in Figs. 3C, 4C and 7C, and certain of the western blotting data shown in Figs. 7E and 8E were strikingly similar to data that had already appeared in other articles written by different authors at different research institutes. Owing to the fact that the contentious data in the above article had already been published prior to its submission to Oncology Reports, the Editor has decided that this paper should be retracted from the Journal. The authors were asked for an explanation to account for these concerns, but the Editorial Office did not receive a reply. The Editor apologizes to the readership for any inconvenience caused. [Oncology Reports 38: 1977‑1984, 2017; DOI: 10.3892/or.2017.5916].
