Corrigendum: Cellular Distribution of Canonical and Putative Cannabinoid Receptors in Canine Cervical Dorsal Root Ganglia
Résumé fourni par la source
In the original article, there was a mistake in the legend for Figure 3 as published. The legend of Figure 3 (g-l) is incorrect. The correct legend appears below. FIGURE 3 | Photomicrographs of cryosections of canine cervical (C8) dorsal root ganglion showing cannabinoid receptor 2- (CB2), glial fibrillary acidic protein- (GFAP), and CD31-immunoreactivity. (a–c) Stars indicate NeuroTrace labeled (a) dorsal root ganglion sensory neurons which were CB2 receptor negative (b), as well as the satellite glial cells (white arrows). (d–f) Stars indicate sensory neurons encircled by satellite glial cells (white arrows) which were GFAP-immunoreactive (e) and CB2 receptor negative. CB2 receptor immunoreactivity was expressed by Schwann cells and neuronal nuclei (open arrow). (g–i) The empty arrow indicates one neuronal axon that bifurcates (T-junction) in its central and peripheral portions (large white arrows). The small arrows indicate the nuclei of Schwann cells. (j–l) Open arrows indicate smooth muscle cells (vessel on the left) and pericyte-like cells (elongated and thin blood vessel on the right) showing CB2 receptor immunoreactivity (j).White arrows indicate endothelial cells showing CD31 immunoreactivity (k). Bar: a–f, j–l = 50μm; g–i = 100 μm. The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Corrigendum: Cellular Distribution of Canonical and Putative Cannabinoid Receptors in Canine Cervical Dorsal Root Ganglia
- Date Crossref
- 31/10/2019
- Éditeur
- Frontiers Media SA
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude et ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.