Correction: An integrated characterization of contractile, electrophysiological and structural cardiotoxicity of Sophora tonkinensis Gapnep. in human pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes

Correction: Stem Cell Research & Therapy (2019) 10:20 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-018-1126-4

In the original article [1], the authors identified that Fig. 9 and Fig. 10 in the article used the wrong images because of incorrect figure assembly.

In Fig. 9A, the ROS fluorescence image of sophocarpine-10 μM was the same as that of cytisine-50 μM. The authors identified that the image of cytisine-50 μM was uploaded incorrectly, and the correct ROS fluorescence and bright field image of cytisine-50 μM in reassembled Fig. 9 were provided.

In Fig. 10, the intracellular calcium fluorescence image of matrine-10 μM was the same as that of matrine-50 μM. The authors identified that the image of matrine-10 μM was uploaded incorrectly, and the correct calcium fluorescence and bright field image of matrine-10 μM in the reassembled Fig. 10 were provided.

The revised Figs. 9 and 10 were given in this article.

Fig. 9

Effect of matrine, oxymatrine, cytisine and sophocarpine on ROS formation in hiPSC-CMs. After treatment with matrine, oxymatrine, cytisine and sophocarpine, A the images of ROS fluorescence and bright field were acquired intuitively using IncuCyte™ S3 ZOOM cell imaging system and B, C the fluorescence intensity was analysed quantitatively using TissueQuest 6.0. The scale bar is 400 μm. Data are presented as the mean ± SEM, n ≥ 3. *P > 0.05, **P > 0.01 and ***P > 0.001 vs control group.

Fig. 10

Effect of matrine, oxymatrine, cytisine and sophocarpine on intracellular calcium in hESC-CMs. After treatment of matrine, oxymatrine, cytisine and sophocarpine, the images of calcium fluorescence and bright field were acquired intuitively and the fluorescence intensity was analysed quantitatively using IncuCyte™ S3 ZOOM cell imaging system. The scale bar is 400 μm. Data are presented as the mean ± SEM, n ≥ 3. *P > 0.05, **P > 0.01 and ***P > 0.001 vs control group

Although this correction does not affect conclusions of article, the authors still apologize to the editor and the readership of the journal for carelessness in figure assembly.