Erratum: A guide to accurate reporting in digital image acquisition – can anyone replicate your microscopy data? (Journal of Cell Science (2021) 134 (jcs254144) DOI: 10.1242/jcs.254144)

Abstract

The authors wish to correct errors in paragraphs five and six of the ‘Detectors’ section of the Review, where the text incorrectly referred to Manders’ overlap coefficient (MOC) instead of Manders’ overlap fraction (M1). The correct text in paragraph five is as follows: To demonstrate how changing these settings could have a ‘real-world’ effect, we compared the level of myosin II and RLC-p (Fig. 4B′–D′) and calculated the Manders’ overlap fraction (M1) of the two proteins (Fig. 4F) (Aaron et al., 2018). The correct text in paragraph six is as follows: To compare the effect of binning on quantification, we measure Pearson’s correlation coefficient (PCC) (Adler and Parmryd, 2012) in this example, instead of Manders’ overlap fraction. Where M1 showed the change in overlap between the two channels (total myosin II and RLC-p), PCC describes the intensity correlation between the two channels (Aaron et al., 2018, code available at www.github.com/aicjanelia/colocalization). The authors apologise to readers for these errors, which do not impact the conclusions of the article. Both the online full text and PDF versions of the article have been corrected.