Correction: Clinical application of a double-modified sulfated bacterial cellulose scaffold material loaded with FGFR2-modified adipose-derived stem cells in urethral reconstruction

Correction to: Stem Cell Research and Therapy (2022) 13:463 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-022-03164-9

Following the publication of the original article [1], the authors have identified some errors in the Figs. 2, 4, 5, 7 and Additional file 1: Fig. S1. The correction are as follows:

Fig. 2

A Microstructure of BC, MBC, SBC, and SMBC; B surface scan images of BC, SBC, and SMBC

Fig. 4

A ADSCs cells under white light and fluorescence; B, C Partial size of protein and mRNA expression levels of overexpressed FGFR2; D, E proliferation, migration and invasion ability of FGFR2 ctrl and OE ADSCs; F Osteogenic and adipogenic differentiation capacity of FGFR2 ctrl and OE ADSCs. “**”, < 0.01; “***”, < 0.001

Fig. 5

A Differential gene heatmap between two groups; B KEGG enrichment analyses of the differential genes; C GSEA enrichment analyses of the two groups

Fig. 7

A, B Urography and urethroscopy of Negative controls, FGFR2 ctrl and FGFR2 OE groups at 1 month and 3 months after surgery; C VEGFA; D HE; E MASSON; F Prussian blue; G AE1/AE3; H CD31; I CD34; J alpha-SMA; K Desmin of Negative controls, FGFR2 ctrl and FGFR2 OE groups at 1 month and 3 months after surgery

In Fig. 2a, the image MBC/2um was duplicated from Fig. 3a, DMBC/2um in the team’s previous publication [2]. It has been replaced with parallel experiment of the microstructure of MBC in 2 μm. And all the images were added with a clearly standard ruler. The pictures only show the microstructure of the material and do not affect the experimental results. And in Fig. 1b, the authors corrected the wrong spelling of MBC to SBC.

In Fig. 4E, the magnification of Transwell in migration experiment was not consistent with that in invasion experiment, so the authors replaced the images with the same magnification in migration experiment. The statistics are based on the magnification statistics of Invasion, but there is a problem with the display picture, and the 3 repeated tests all show the similar results.

In Fig. 5C, the graphic drawing of GSEA enrichment analysis is wrong, but the analysis process and results are correct, which does not affect the conclusion, and the related graphics have been redrawn.

In Fig. 7C, magnified insert of 3 month/FGFR2 ctrl (vector) group was duplicated from 3 month/FGFR2 OE group. In Fig. 7J, the 1 month/FGFR2 negative group was corrected, magnified insert of 3 month/FGFR2 OE group was duplicated from 3 month/Negative control group, and the magnified insert of 3 month/FGFR2 vector group was incorrect. The 1 month/FGFR2 OE group and 3 month/FGFR2 ctrl (vector) group were misplaced and have been swapped. The authors provided the correct images to replace these erroneous ones.

In Additional file 1: Fig. S1A, due to the confusion of DMBC and SMBC in the related study, the 30-day degradation images of SMBC was duplicated from DMBC-30 day image in Additional file 1: Fig. S2 in the team’s previous publication [2]. So the authors corrected the 30-day degradation image of SMBC. And in Additional file 1: Fig. S1B, the BC/7 day image was duplicated from the SBC/100 um image in Fig. 2A. And for Additional file 1: Fig. S1B, although the relevant experimental material (e.g. SMBC/0 day) is a further representation of the pictures in Fig. 2, to eliminate the misunderstanding of repeated use of pictures, the authors replaced the relevant pictures in Additional file 1: Fig. S1B with the results of parallel experiments.

The authors apologize for the delay in finding the error in the above figures. The errors did not affect the results, and all relevant raw data were verified by the editorial team.