Bone Research 10.1038/s41413-020-0084-5, published online 14 February 2020Correction to: 1 previously published in Bone Research, we regrettably found a omitting in the acknowledgement section relating to the supporting foundation.During a re-read of our articleThat work was also supported by the Key Laboratory of Trauma & Neural Regeneration (Peking University), Chinese Ministry of Education (Number: BMU2019XY007-01); and Major R&D Program of Chinese National Ministry of Science and Technology (2018YFB1105504).


APOE-ε4 allele, most variants bear only little individual effect and have, therefore, limited diagnostic and prognostic value. Polygenic risk scores aim to collate the disease risk distributed across the genome in a single score. Recent works have demonstrated that polygenic risk scores designed for Alzheimer’s disease are predictive of clinical diagnosis, pathology confirmed diagnosis and changes in imaging biomarkers. Methodological innovations in polygenic risk modelling include the polygenic hazard score, which derives effect estimates for individual single nucleotide polymorphisms from survival analysis, and methods that account for linkage disequilibrium between genomic loci. In this work, using data from the Alzheimer’s disease neuroimaging initiative, we compared different approaches to quantify polygenic disease burden for Alzheimer’s disease and their association (beyond the APOE locus) with a broad range of Alzheimer’s disease-related traits: cross-sectional CSF biomarker levels, cross-sectional cortical amyloid burden, clinical diagnosis, clinical progression, longitudinal loss of grey matter and longitudinal decline in cognitive function. We found that polygenic scores were associated beyond APOE with clinical diagnosis, CSF-tau levels and, to a minor degree, with progressive atrophy. However, for many other tested traits such as clinical disease progression, CSF amyloid, cognitive decline and cortical amyloid load, the additional effects of polygenic burden beyond APOE were of minor nature. Overall, polygenic risk scores and the polygenic hazard score performed equally and given the ease with which polygenic risk scores can be derived; they constitute the more practical choice in comparison with polygenic hazard scores. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that incomplete adjustment for the APOE locus, i.e. only adjusting for APOE-ε4 carrier status, can lead to overestimated effects of polygenic scores due to APOE-ε4 homozygous participants. Lastly, on many of the tested traits, the major driving factor remained the APOE locus, with the exception of quantitative CSF-tau and p-tau measures.Genome-wide association studies have identified dozens of loci that alter the risk to develop Alzheimer’s disease. However, with the exception of the  APOE locus, polygenic scores were associated with clinical diagnosis, CSF-tau and p-tau and progressive atrophy, but not with amyloid beta pathology.Altmann et al. compared different approaches to quantify polygenic disease burden for Alzheimer’s disease and their association with a broad range of Alzheimer’s disease-related traits. Beyond the   APP, PSEN1 and PSEN2 mutations in familial Alzheimer’s disease . Consequently, the effect of APOE-ε4 on various Alzheimer’s disease biomarkers has been studied extensively over the last decades . M.A.S. acknowledges financial support the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)-funded UCL Centre for Doctoral Training in Medical Imaging (EP/L016478/1). L.M.A. has received funding European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 666992. E.d.S. acknowledges supported from the National Institute for Health University College London Hospitals Biomedical Centre. D.M.C. is supported by grants from the Alzheimer Society (AS-PG-15-025), Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK-PG2014-1946) and Medical Research Council UK (MR/M023664/1). J.H. was supported in part by the Dolby Family Fund, the UK Dementia Research Institute and the Health University College London Hospitals Biomedical Centre as well as by an anonymous foundation. J.M.S. acknowledges the support of the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, Wolfson Foundation, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) (EP/J020990/1), Medical Research Council (MRC) Dementias Platform UK (MR/L023784/1), Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK-PG2017-1946), Brain Research UK (UCC14191), Weston Brain Institute (UB170045) and European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (Grant 666992).www.fnih.org). The grantee organization is the Northern California Institute for Research and Education, and the study is coordinated by the Alzheimer’s Therapeutic Research Institute at the University of Southern California. ADNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for Neuro Imaging at the University of Southern California.Data collection and sharing for this project were funded by the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative  and DOD ADNI (Department of Defense award number W81XWH-12-2-0012). ADNI is funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and through generous contributions from the following: AbbVie, Alzheimer’s Association; Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation; Araclon Biotech; BioClinica, Inc.; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; CereSpir, Inc.; Cogstate; Eisai Inc.; Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; EuroImmun; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company Genentech, Inc.; Fujirebio; GE Healthcare; IXICO Ltd.; Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.; Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC.; Lumosity; Lundbeck; Merck & Co., Inc.; Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC.; NeuroRx Research; Neurotrack Technologies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; Piramal Imaging; Servier; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company; and Transition Therapeutics. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is providing funds to support ADNI clinical sites in Canada. Private sector contributions are facilitated by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health ; has consulted for Roche, Eli Lilly, Biogen and Merck, GE; received royalties from Oxford University Press and Henry Stewart Talks; given education lectures sponsored by Eli Lilly, Biogen and GE; and serves on a Data Safety Monitoring Committee for Axon Neuroscience SE.fcz047_Supplementary_DataClick here for additional data file.


A novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 causing Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has entered the human population and has spread rapidly around the world in the first half of 2020 causing a global pandemic. The virus uses its spike glycoprotein receptor-binding domain to interact with host cell angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2) sites to initiate a cascade of events that culminate in severe acute respiratory syndrome in some individuals. In efforts to curtail viral spread, authorities initiated far-reaching lockdowns that have disrupted global economies. The scientific and medical communities are mounting serious efforts to limit this pandemic and subsequent waves of viral spread by developing preventative vaccines and repurposing existing drugs as potential therapies. In this review, we focus on the latest developments in COVID-19 vaccine development, including results of the first Phase I clinical trials and describe a number of the early candidates that are emerging in the field. We seek to provide a balanced coverage of the seven main platforms used in vaccine development that will lead to a desired target product profile for the “ideal” vaccine. Using tales of past vaccine discovery efforts that have taken many years or that have failed, we temper over exuberant enthusiasm with cautious optimism that the global medical community will reach the elusive target to treat COVID-19 and end the pandemic. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is caused by the novel beta-coronavirus family member coined SARS-CoV-2 (Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) . In Decevia the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of this glycoprotein in the “prefusion” state  . Severe Knowing the genetic makeup of SARS-CoV-2 is essential for COVID-19 diagnostics. The 30 kb SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence analysis of a patient isolate from Wuhan at the epi-center in China, published in early January 2020, took place swiftly after viral isolation . From JaReverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) is the hallmark laboratory diagnostic technology to detect viral nucleic acid obtained from nasal swabs. Each jurisdiction around the world has designated screening assays using primer sets from either N, E, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, ORF1a or ORF1b sequences . ReliablVaccines are one of the monumental achievements in human medical intervention to mitigate the dispersion and impact of infectious disease. Polio was a serious crippling disorder for decades until the development of two separate vaccine candidates by Jonas Salk and Albert Sabin . From thWorld Health OrganizationCoalition for Epidemic Preparedness InnovationsMilken Institute+ years for an approved vaccine down to 12–18 months. CEPI, the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development AuthorityGAVI, The Vaccine AllianceOperation Warp SpeedGiven the worldwide magnitude of the COVID-19 pandemic and comparisons to the great Spanish flu of 1918, the race for a vaccine candidate has taken on unprecedented urgency and commitment across the globe. Established organizations are maintaining databases of vaccines under development including the neutralizing antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 antigens (e.g. S and/or N) is imperative  The candidate vaccine should limit any serious adverse events (SAEs) at the injection site or systemically, for example, fever in infants and young children. In the case of respiratory disorders caused by infectious agents, it is essential that vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (VAERD), antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC), complement-dependent cytotoxicity, including cytokine storm-inducing effects are completely avoided  a robust immune response generating long-lasting  avoided . Some of avoided . Since t avoided , blockin avoided  and hypeeasy to administer and preferably in a single dose at the lowest possible amount. An oral or intranasal vaccine would be ideal. (ii) The vaccine should be facile to produce and scale-up. Manufacturing millions to billions of doses required to immunize the human population must be feasible and rapid. (iii) Long-term storage of the vaccine at room temperature should be a sought after goal to facilitate transport and stockpiling in underdeveloped nations with inadequate supply chains and cold chain capacities  the vaccine should be The normal strides taken to achieve successful vaccine development are similar to those for any drug. The process should be very stringent seeing that it will culminate in administration of the vaccine candidate to billions of humans. The typical paradigm is depicted in DNA (12 candidates) and RNA (20+ candidates), which could be sub-divided further according to particular traits related to delivery and carriers  but for simplicity are considered only as two categories. These nucleic acid platforms belong to the new generation of vaccines. Neither has reached licensing for human use but a number are being tested in humans  includes a broad range of technologies to prepare immune-stimulating viral protein antigens and represents the largest category of all current COVID-19 vaccine candidates (currently 44+) in development. Like nucleic acids, protein-based vaccines represent a newer technology but some are already in use in the clinical realm (e.g. Gardasil for human papillomavirus). The fourth and fifth categories are viral-based vectors, similar to those used in gene therapy and include nonreplicating (16+ candidates) and replicating (14+ candidates) vectors. The next two are the SARS-CoV-2 viruses themselves, either inactivated , the use of non–SARS-CoV-2 virus carriers such as killed rabies (CORAVAX) and live modified horsepox (TX-1800). There are 10+ in this category. Repurposed existing vaccines for polio or tuberculosis to evoke general immunity, various cellular immunotherapies to stimulate the host immune system, encapsulated convalescent serum, and “unknown” platform designation (listed in The Milken Institute database) are excluded from our analyses  or in a  culture . The “OtFor the ideal COVID-19 vaccine to reach routine use in humans, it is imperative that the vaccine protects against both clinical disease and viral transmission, in order to break the chain of person-to-person pandemic spread. Some of the advantages/disadvantages of each platform are considered in In this section, we provide some specific details on 16 (of >125) vaccines in the pipeline that are registered for clinical trials or already being tested , in addition to those that are currently CEPI- and/or BARDA-sponsored from each platform that are, or not yet, in clinical trials. This is to provide a snapshot of the field in early endeavors to procure a functional SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in man and their proposed developmental pipeline (DNA Vaccines(i) Name: INO-4800 (Company (Country):Inovio (USA)INO-4800  Company Antigen: SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein (S)Details of platform: DNA plasmid encoding S delivered by CELLECTRA® 2000 electroporatorRoute/mode of administration: intradermal injection followed by electroporationSafety of Platform: Inovio's method has been tested in >2,000 people with >6,000 administrations with a favorable safety and tolerability profile. However, DNA vaccines are not currently in use in humansAdvantages: fast design/manufacturing; no cold chain for storage/distribution; robust immune responseClinical Trial Registration: NCT04336410Start date: April 6, 2020Official Name of Trial: Safety, Tolerability and Immunogenicity of INO-4800 for COVID-19 in Healthy VolunteersStudy design: Phase I, non-randomized open label with Groups 1 and 2 for 18-50 y.o, n=40 at two clinics (in US); Dosing Regimen: Single 1 mg dose of INO-4800 followed by electroporation using the CELLECTRA® 2000 device (Group 1) and dual injections of 1 mg  of INO-4800 followed by EP using the CELLECTRA® 2000 device per dosing visit at Days 0 and 28; Endpoints: Primary – General safety including percentage with adverse events (AEs) and local injection site reactions up to 52 weeks; Ag-specific binding titer and IFN-γ increase from baselinePartners: Beijing Advaccine Biotechnology (China) and International Vaccine Institute (Korea)Funding Partners: Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the US Department of DefenseManufacturing partners: VGXI, Inc., Richter-Helm, and Ology BioservicesNext stage: Preliminary data end June 2020; starting Phase II/III late summer/Fall 2020Timeline: 1 million doses of INO-4800 by the end of 2020 (ii) Name: BacTRL-Spike  Company (Country):Symvivo (Canada)Antigen: SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein (S)Details of platform: DNA plasmid expressing trimeric S and a hybrid transporter protein within Bifidobacterium longum delivered to colonic epithelial cells to prime an immune response via colonic lymphoid tissuesRoute/mode of administration: oral ingestion of probiotic capsuleSafety of Platform: Extensive worldwide use of probiotics. However, DNA vaccines are not currently on the market for use in humans and this particular strategy is untested.Advantages: fast design and manufacturing; no cold chain for storage and distribution; robust immune response and mucosal immunity predictedClinical Trial Registration: NCT04334980Start date: June 2020 (projected)Official Name of Trial: A Phase 1, Randomized, Observer-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability and Immunogenicity of the bacTRL-Spike Oral Candidate Vaccine for the Prevention of COVID-19 in Healthy AdultsStudy design: Phase I, dose-escalating with three cohorts, n=84; Dosing Regimen: Single oral dose of BacTRL-Spike at three doses  or placebo in each cohort (with n=63 for vaccine and n=21 for placebo); Endpoints: Primary – Incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) Secondary: Seroconversion, virus stool shedding, protection from COVID-19Partners: none announcedFunding Partners: none announcedManufacturing partners: none announcedNext stage: Obtain results of Phase I study by end of the year and get 10,000+ enrolled in further Phase II/III studiesTimeline: 5000 doses by July 2020 and goal of 10 million doses/week through manufacturing scale upRNA Vaccines(i) Name: mRNA-1273 (13 candidates in development) Company (Country):Moderna (USA)Antigen: Full-length prefusion stabilized SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein (S)Details of platform: Non-replicating RNA genetic material mixed with LNP formulation Route/mode of administration: i.m. deltoidSafety of Platform: >1500 injections with Moderna's RNA formulations for Zika, RSV, CMV, Chikungunya viruses have taken place in other Phase I and II clinical trials and are generally well-tolerated. No RNA vaccines are currently licensed and approved for use in humansAdvantages: fast design and manufacturing; robust immune responseClinical Trial Registration: NCT04283461 (NCT04405076) Start date: March 16, 2020 (IND for Phase II approved May 7 and started early June 2020)Official Name of Trial: Safety and Immunogenicity Study of 2019-nCoV Vaccine (mRNA-1273) for Prophylaxis of SARS-CoV-2 Infection (COVID-19)Study design: Phase I, non-randomized open label with Arms 1–3 for 18–54 y.o., n=15/arm, Arms 4–6 for 55–70 y.o., n=10/arm and Arms 7–9 for 71+ y.o., n=10/arm; Dosing Regimen: Dual 25, 100, or 250 μg in 0.5 ml on Days 1 and 29 followed up to 12 months after 2nd injection; Endpoints: Primary – General safety including local reactogenicity and serious adverse events (SAEs) throughout the study duration; Secondary - mean increase general Ab and IgG titers from baseline, percentage subjects with seroconversion at Day 57Partners: NIAID/NIH; Operation Warp SpeedFunding Partners: CEPI, BARDAManufacturing partners: LonzaNext stage: Obtain complete results of Phase I (see interim results below) and get 10,000+ enrolled in Phase II/III studiesTimeline: scaling up manufacturing capacity toward the production of millions of doses per month, in the potential form of individual or multidose vials, with goal of 1 billion doses/year(ii) Name: BNT162 Company (Country):BioNtech SE (Germany)/Pfizer (USA)Antigens: SARS-CoV-2 3C-like protease (3CLpro), NSP5, SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro)Details of platform: Uridine containing mRNA (uRNA) or nucleoside modified mRNA (modRNA) mixed with proprietary lipoplex formulation for the three antigens, as well as a fourth vaccine candidate self-amplifying mRNA (saRNA)Route/mode of administration: i.m. injection (0.5 ml) prime and boostSafety of Platform: No RNA vaccines are currently licensed and approved for use in humansAdvantages: fast design and manufacturing; robust immune responseClinical Trial Registration: NCT04368728  Start date: April 29, 2020Official Name of Trial: Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Potential Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates against COVID-19 in Healthy AdultsStudy design: Phase I/II, randomized, placebo-controlled, observer-blind, dose-finding, and vaccine candidate-selection study in healthy adults. 18 experimental arms each with four vaccine targets  x 3 age groups  × 2 dosing time points (timing not specified) × 3 doses  + 3 placebo comparator arms carried out in three stages; Stage 1: to identify preferred vaccine candidate(s), dose level(s), number of doses, and schedule of administration (with the first 15 participants at each dose level of each vaccine candidate comprising a sentinel cohort); Stage 2: an expanded-cohort stage; and Stage 3; a final candidate/dose large-scale stage; n=7400; Dosing Regimen: Single and dual doses to be tested; Endpoints: Primary – General safety, incidence and severity of adverse events (AEs) up to a week after each dose and blood chemistry in sentinel cohort; Secondary: Various immune parameters and incidence of COVID-19Partners: Fosun Pharma ; Operation Warp SpeedFunding Partners: PfizerManufacturing partners: Pfizer (3 sites in USA and 1 in Belgium)Next stage: Move quickly through Phase I and recruit up to 8000 volunteers for Phase IITimeline: Millions of doses by year end  and hundreds of millions by end of 2021(iii) Name: “Lead candidate” Company (Country):CureVac AG (Germany)Antigen: undisclosedDetails of platform: Engineered RNA genetic material mixed with LNPs (from either Acuitas or Arcturus) or proprietary CureVac Carrier MoleculeRoute/mode of administration: presumably i.m. injectionSafety of Platform: No RNA vaccines are currently licensed and approved for use in humans but their platform has been tested for vaccine development directed toward other virusesAdvantages: fast design and manufacturing; robust immune responseClinical Trial Registration: not yet registered Start date: June 2020 (projected)Study design: Phase I in two European sites; Dosing Regimen: Single and dual doses to be tested; Endpoints: Initial immunogenicity and safety resultsPartners: Paul Ehrlich InstituteFunding Partners: CEPI $8.3M and the EU has promised 80M Euro for scale-up and production; Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation; Defense Advanced Research Projects AgencyManufacturing partners: not announcedNext stage: Start Phase I studies in summer 2020 and Phase II projected for Fall 2020Timeline: up to several hundred million doses of bulk RNA/year with their current GMP III facility; a new GMP IV suite will be put into operation within two years where capacity for production of one billion or more doses per year is possibleRecombinant Protein-Based Vaccines(i) Name: NVX-CoV2373 Company (Country): Novavax (USA)Antigen: Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (S) in prefusion stateDetails of platform: Recombinant protein is expressed in genetically engineered Sf9 insect cells and the properly folded and post-translationally modified protein is incorporated into a nanoparticle formulation along with Novavax's saponin-based Matrix-M adjuvantRoute/mode of administration: i.m. injection to deltoid muscleSafety of Platform: Novavax's platform has been tested in several Phase I, II, III trials for seasonal influenza, Ebola and RSV and appears to be safeAdvantages: fast design and relatively rapid production possibleClinical Trial Registration: NCT04368988 Start date: May 15, 2020Official Name of Trial: A 2-Part, Phase I/II, Randomized, Observer-Blinded Study to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of a SARS-CoV-2 Recombinant Spike Protein Nanoparticle Vaccine (SARS-CoV-2 rS) with or without MATRIX-M™ Adjuvant in Healthy SubjectsStudy design: Phase I clinical trial  is a placebo-controlled observer blinded study of about 130 healthy adults followed by Phase II in multiple countries; Dosing Regimen: Single and dual doses to be tested at Day 0 and 21, either 5 or 25 μg with 50 μg Matrix M; Endpoints: include assessment of dosage amount and number of vaccinations, along with preliminary immunogenicity and safety resultsPartners: Emergent BioSolutionsFunding Partners: CEPI $388 millionManufacturing partner: Emergent BioSolutions; Praha Vaccines and Serum Institute of IndiaNext stage: Preliminary data from Phase I in July, then proceeding to Phase II (2200 volunteers in multiple countries) later in summer with results expected by the end of 2020Timeline: 100 million doses by year-end and a billion by end of 2021(ii) Name: SCB-2019 Company (Country):Clover Biopharmaceuticals Inc. (China)Antigen: Recombinant trimeric SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (S)Details of platform: patented Trimer-Tag® technology to produce a S-Trimer protein subunit vaccine that resembles the native trimeric viral spike via a rapid mammalian cell-culture based expression systemRoute/mode of administration: i.m. injection to deltoid muscleSafety of Platform: Clover has previously developed recombinant subunit-Trimer vaccines for RSV and Influenza viruses utilizing its Trimer-Tag® technology and has demonstrated that they are able to evoke protective neutralizing antibody responses in multiple animal models and appears to be safe.Advantages: fast design and relatively rapid production possibleClinical Trial Registration: NCT04405908Start date: June 20, 2020 (projected)Official Name of Trial: SCB-2019 as COVID-19 vaccineStudy design: Phase I, Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled, n=150, SCB-2019 alone or with two different adjuvants; Dosing Regimen: twice (Day 1 and Day 22) at three doses ; Endpoints: includes assessment of dosage amount, number of vaccinations, along with preliminary immunogenicity and safety resultsPartners: Chengdu Hi-Tech Park (R&D) and Chengdu Clinical Center for Public Health/Clover Australia ; both GSK and Dynavax (Adjuvants)Funding Partners: CEPI ($3.8 M)Manufacturing partner: Clover has one of the largest in-house, commercial-scale cGMP biomanufacturing capabilities in China and is partnering with GSK to use their Pandemic adjuvant System and Dynavax for their (TLR9 agonist) CpG 2018 adjuvant (the adjuvant used in HEPLISAV-B® , an adult hepatitis B vaccine approved by FDA)Next stage: Get clinical trials underway and evaluate dataTimeline: not disclosed yet(iii) Name: “Lead candidate” Organization (Country):University of Queensland Antigen: Recombinant trimeric SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (S)Details of platform: molecular clamp platform by synthesizing viral surface proteins, which attach to host cells during infection, and “clamping” them into shape, making it easier for the immune system to recognize them as the correct antigenRoute/mode of administration: presumably i.m. injectionSafety of Platform: unknown details for this specific platformAdvantages: fast design and relatively rapid production possibleClinical Trial Registration: not yet registered Start date: July 2020 projectedOfficial Name of Trial: not yet started but will take place in AustraliaStudy design: Phase I not started yet; Dosing Regimen: not known; Endpoints: not knownPartners: Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, Melbourne (Vaccine development), Viroclinics Xplore , GSK (Adjuvant)Funding Partners: CEPI $10.6 MManufacturing partner: Cytiva , as well as Lonza and Thermo Fisher Scientific; CSL/Seqirus, Dynavax and GSK will supply adjuvantsNext stage: Get clinical trials underwayTimeline: not disclosed yet(iv) Name: “Lead candidate” Company (Country):Sanofi/GSK collaboration (France/UK)Antigen: Recombinant trimeric SARS-CoV-2 Spike protein (S)Details of platform: Sanofi's recombinant DNA technology and their Sf9 insect cell expression systemRoute/mode of administration: presumably i.m. injectionSafety of Platform: the combination of a protein-based antigen together with an adjuvant, is well-established and used in a number of vaccines available todayAdvantages: fast design and relatively rapid production possibleClinical Trial Registration: not yet registered Start date: July-September 2020 projectedOfficial Name of Trial: not yet namedStudy design: Phase I not started yet; Dosing Regimen: not known; Endpoints: not disclosed yetFunding Partners: BARDAManufacturing partners: both Sanofi and GSK are global leaders in vaccine development and they have the capacity to generate millions of dosesNext stage: Get clinical trials underway and complete the development required for availability of a vaccine by the second half of 2021Timeline: not disclosed yetViral Vector-Based (Nonreplicating)Name: AZD1222 (formerly ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) Company (Country):University of Oxford/Astra Zeneca collaboration (UK)(i) Antigen: SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein (S)Details of platform: AZD1222 derives from a chimpanzee viral vector (ChAdOx1), which is a weakened version of a common cold adenovirus with the Spike-encoding region cloned into the E1 locus. Although it infects this primate, it is genetically altered so that it is incapable of viral spread in humans. The same vector modality is in vaccine candidates for influenza, tuberculosis, Chikungunya and Zika viruses.Route/mode of administration: i.m. injectionSafety of Platform: Vaccines made from the ChAdOx1 viral vector platform for over 10 different pathogens have been tested in thousands of volunteers (1 week to 90 y.o.) to date and are safe and well tolerated, although they can cause temporary side effects, such as a temperature elevation, headache or sore armAdvantages: favorable safety and tolerability profile of the platformClinical Trial Registration: NCT04324606  Start date: April 23, 2020Official Name of Trial: A Phase I/II Study to Determine Efficacy, Safety and Immunogenicity of the Candidate Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Vaccine ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 in UK Healthy Adult VolunteersStudy design: Phase I/II single-blinded, randomized multicenter participants recruited in UK; n=1102 volunteers 18–55 y.o. good health, n=551 in active arm ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and n=551 in control arm using MenACWY vaccine (same vector but against meningitis); Dosing Regimen: Single 5 × 1010 vp  Endpoints: Primary - Number of virologically confirmed (PCR positive) symptomatic cases of COVID-19; Occurrence of serious adverse events (SAEs) throughout the study duration; Secondary - safety/tolerability/reactogenicity/immunogenicityPartners: Vaccitech (role taken over by Astra Zeneca); Operation Warp SpeedFunding Partners: CEPI, GAVI, BARDAManufacturing partners: Serum Institute of India and WuXi Biologics Inc., Vaccines Manufacturing and Innovation Centre Next stage: Preliminary human data June 2020; Phase III efficacy of 5000 volunteers by Fall 2020Timeline: 20-40 million doses of AZD1222 by September 2020 and 400 million by end 2020Name: Ad5-nCoV Company (Country):CanSino Biologics Inc. (China)(ii) Antigen: Full-length SARS-CoV-2 Spike glycoprotein (S)Details of platform: Ad5 vectors are well studied and can be grown into high titer stable stocks, they infect non-dividing and dividing cells, they are maintained in cells as an episome; the essential E1A and E1B genes are deleted and replaced by an expression cassette with a high activity cytomegalovirus immediate early (CMV) promoter, which drives expression of the target S proteinRoute/mode of administration: i.m. injection into deltoidSafety of Platform: In general, safe and well tolerated; however, can be dangerous in immunocompromised individuals. One drawback is that there could be pre-existing neutralizing Abs to the Ad5 vector in some adultsAdvantages: well-tested vector in gene therapy and vaccination trials (MERS and Ebola) but could be difficult for large-scale manufacturingClinical Trial Registration: (i) NCT04313127; (ii) ChiCTR2000031781/(NCT04341389) Start date: (i) March 16, 2020; (ii) April 12, 2020Official Name of Trial: (i) A Single-center, Open-label Dose-escalating Phase I Clinical Trial to Evaluate Recombinant Novel Coronavirus Vaccine (Adenovirus Type 5 Vector) in Healthy Adults Aged 18-60 Years Old (ii) A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled phase II clinical trial for Recombinant Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCOV) Vaccine (Adenovirus Vector) in healthy adults aged above 18 yearsStudy design: (i) Phase I, non-randomized open label dose-escalating with three cohorts  Phase II randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled with 3 groups  n=500; Dosing Regimen: (i) Single dose  single dose ; Endpoints: Primary – General safety including any adverse events (AEs) up to 7 (or 14 for Phase II) days after injection; Secondary – Safety up to 6 months and various immunogenicity indices up to 6 months for both Phase I and II trialsPartners: vaccine co-developed with Beijing Institute of Biotechnology; Academy of Military Medical Sciences. PLA of China Jiangsu Province Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Hubei Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention, Tongji Hospital);(ii) Jiangsu Provincial Center for Disease Control and Prevention; Canadian Immunization Research Network at the Canadian Center for Vaccinology; (iii) Canadian Center for Vaccinology (NCT04398147)Funding Partners: CanSinoManufacturing partners: CanSino, others (not known)Next stage: evaluate Phase II trial data and scale-up productionTimeline: preliminary data from Phase I just published (see below) but no exact timelines on production and scale-up reportedName: Ad26 SARS-CoV-2 (+ 2 back ups) Company (Country):Johnson and Johnson (USA)(iii) Antigen: undisclosedDetails of platform: Janssen's AdVac® and PER.C6® technologies allow for over a million doses to be produced from a 1000 liter bioreactor since the cells grow to high density in suspension culture; the non-replicating Ad26 vector (E1/E3 genes deleted) is likely better than Ad5 since less likelihood of preexisting antibodies to the vectorRoute/mode of administration: i.m. injection into deltoidSafety of Platform: their particular platform technology is used for an investigational Ebola vaccine in Africa and has also been used for their Zika, RSV and HIV vaccine candidates and appears to be safeAdvantages: well-tested vector in gene therapy and vaccination trials with transport/storage at 2-8 °C for 6 monthsClinical Trial Registration: not yet registered Start date: September 2020 projectedOfficial Name of Trial: not known yetPartners: Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center; Operation Warp SpeedFunding Partners: BARDA cofunding $1 billion+Manufacturing partners: Emergent BioSolutions Inc., CatalentNext stage: Quick rollout of Phase I in September and EUA by early 2021Timeline: goal of providing global supply of more than one billion doses of a vaccine (unspecified timing)Viral Vector-Based (Replicating)Name: “Lead candidate” Company (Country):Institut Pasteur (France)/Merck (USA)(i) Antigen: undisclosed Details of platform: measles vaccine vector exclusively licensed to Themis (purchased by Merck) from Institut Pasteur, with the capacity to insert multiple large recombinant protein antigens includes auto-adjuvant effect by live attenuated replicating vectorRoute/mode of administration: i.m. injection into deltoid presumablySafety of Platform: the technology that Themis uses to develop its vaccine candidates is based on the measles vaccine, which has been used for decades to immunize safely millions around the world; their approach was used to develop a vaccine candidate against SARS, and CEPI has previously partnered with Themis and Institut Pasteur to harness this technology to develop vaccine candidates against Chikungunya, MERS, and Lassa feverAdvantages: proven advanced development and manufacturing capabilities for this platformClinical Trial Registration: not yet registered Start date: September 2020 projectedOfficial Name of Trial: still in preclinical testing phasePartners: University of PittsburghFunding Partners: CEPI $4.9 MManufacturing partners: Merck/Themis/ABL EuropeNext stage: rollout of Phase I this yearTimeline: unspecified timingInactivated VirusName: CoronaVac (formerly PiCoVacc) Company (Country):Sinovac Biotech (China)(i) Antigen: whole virus, with initial reports that the RBD within the Spike protein is the main immunogen  Start date: April 16, 2020Official Name of Trial: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled, Phase I/II Clinical Trial, to Evaluate the Safety and Immunogenicity of the SARS-CoV-2 Inactivated Vaccine in Healthy Adults Aged 18-59 YearsStudy design: Phase I/II, randomized double-blinded, placebo-controlled with various groups of 18–59 y.o. volunteers, n=744 (n=144 for Phase I and n=600 for Phase II); Dosing Regimen: Dual dosing at Day 0 and Day 14 or 28 of medium dose or high dose or placebo in 0.5 ml; Endpoints: Primary – General safety including adverse events (AEs) to 28 days and immunogenicity indices compared between day 0 and day 28; Secondary: Safety and various immunogenicity indices up to Day 56Partners: Sinovac Research and Development Co., Ltd.Funding Partners: Advantech Capital and Vivo Capital ($15M)Manufacturing partners: partnering with Dynavax Technologies Corp for use of their adjuvant CpG 1018, which is currently used in an FDA-approved Hepatitis B Vaccine (Recombinant)Next stage: starting Phase III by end of 2020Timeline: 100 million doses/year projectedName: COVID-19 vaccine Company (Country):Sinopharm (China)(ii) Antigen: whole virusDetails of platform: The inactivated viral vaccine platform is straightforward and used extensively; no details on this particular vaccine could be foundRoute/mode of administration: i.m. injectionSafety of Platform: vaccines made from inactivated virus are used throughout the world with a generally excellent safety profileAdvantages: straightforward process; favorable safety and tolerability profileClinical Trial Registration: ChiCTR2000031809; ChiCTR2000032459* Start date: April 11, 2020Official Name of Trial: A randomized, double-blind, placebo parallel-controlled phase I/II clinical trial for inactivated Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia vaccine (Vero cells)Study design: Phase I/II randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled conducted in Jiaozuo, Henan Province on healthy 6 y.o. and up; 96 volunteers injected by April 23; with n=216 to be injected with either low-, mid-, or hi-doses or placebo n=72 in Phase I; multiple groups in Phase II n=876 to be injected with either low-, mid-, or hi-doses or placebo n=292; Endpoints: Primary – adverse events; Secondary – Multiple safety and immunogenicity parameters up to 1 year post-injectionPartners: Wuhan Institute of Biological Products under the China National Pharmaceutical Group, Sinopharm, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV)/Beijing Institute of Biological Products*Funding Partners: not knownManufacturing partners: unknownNext stage: unknownTimeline: unknown*Two trials are registered in China with different clinical research groups but under “Sinopharm” and it is unclear if they are using the same vaccine candidate*Live Attenuated Virus/OtherName: “Lead” Organization (Country):University of Hong Kong (China)(i) Antigen: undisclosed which SARS-CoV-2 protein(s) usedDetails of platform: a weakened version of the flu virus adapted to express surface protein of the COVID-19 virusRoute/mode of administration: intranasalSafety of Platform: approach has been used previously to develop preclinical vaccine candidates against MERSAdvantages: straightforward process used for several licensed human vaccines; existing infrastructure can be usedClinical Trial Registration: not yet registered Start date: July 2020 projectedOfficial Name of Trial: still in preclinical phaseFunding Partners: CEPIManufacturing partners: dependent on mainland China for manufacturing, no specific partner mentionedNext stage: getting Phase I trials underway by summer 2020Timeline: unknownIn a May 18 press release of interim dataIn this preclinical trial , NHPs  and peer-reviewed publications  reached such exponential heights in such a short period with thousands of “all-things-considered” COVID topics. Mobilization of data sharing and joint global efforts toward this vaccine goal are monumental. It is hoped that the collaborative framework  for prioritizing vaccine and drug candidates, streamlining clinical trials, coordinating regulatory processes and/or leveraging assets among various partners to rapidly respond to the COVID-19 and future pandemics will soon be a reality. However, a successful path forward will be challenging and is certainly not guaranteed. For instance, no efficacious and approved vaccine for HIV/AIDS has come forward in over 30 years. The main HIV surface protein for host cell entry is covered in sugars, as is the Spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, but to a lesser extent . Will thCF and AA conceived the design and concepts. CF wrote the manuscript. CL contributed key information for This research was funded by Queen's University Special Research Project 379415 (CDF).AA is the founder and managing director of Novateur Ventures, Inc. CL is a consultant with Novateur Ventures Inc. CF is a scientific advisor for Novateur Ventures Inc.CF declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.


This observational study aimed to examine the prognostic association of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I)/angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in different left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) categories.In 3717 patients enrolled in the KCHF Registry, a multicentre registry including consecutive patients hospitalized for acute heart failure (HF), we assessed patient characteristics and association between ACE-I/ARB and clinical outcomes according to LVEF. In the three LVEF categories , we compared the patients with ACE-I/ARB as discharge medication and those without, and assessed their 1-year clinical outcomes. We defined the primary outcome measure as a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization.interaction = 0.01).The 1-year cumulative incidences of the primary outcome measure were 36.3% in HFrEF, 30.1% in HFmrEF and 33.8% in HFpEF (log-rank P = 0.07). The adjusted risks of the ACE-I/ARB group relative to the no ACE-I/ARB group for the primary outcome measure were significantly lower in HFrEF and HFmrEF , but not in HFpEF . There was a significant interaction between the LVEF category and the ACE-I/ARB use on the primary outcome measure (PACE-I/ARB for patients who were hospitalized for acute HF was associated with significantly lower risk for a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization in HFrEF and HFmrEF, but not in HFpEF. ACE-I/ARB might be a potential treatment option in HFmrEF as in HFrEF. Previous randomized clinical trials have shown the prognostic and symptomatic benefits of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) –5. On thThe ESC 2016 guideline recognizes the evidence gap between HFrEF and HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) , becauseIt would be intriguing to examine the treatment effect of RAS inhibitors in a large observational registry including all spectrum of LVEF, although large randomized controlled trials dedicated to HFmrEF are desirable , 19. ThiThe Kyoto Congestive Heart Failure registry is a physician-initiated, prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study enrolling the consecutive patients who were hospitalized for acute HF between October 2014 and March 2016 at 19 secondary and tertiary hospitals in Japan.The study was approved by the institutional review boards of Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine ; Shiga General Hospital ; Tenri Hospital ; Kobe City Medical Center General Hospital ; Hyogo Prefectural Amagasaki General Medical Center ; National Hospital Organization Kyoto Medical Center ; Mitsubishi Kyoto Hospital (approved 11/12/2014); Okamoto Memorial Hospital ; Japanese Red Cross Otsu Hospital ; Hikone Municipal Hospital ; Japanese Red Cross Osaka Hospital ; Shimabara Hospital ; Kishiwada City Hospital ; Kansai Electric Power Hospital ; Shizuoka General Hospital ; Kurashiki Central Hospital ; Kokura Memorial Hospital ; Kitano Hospital ; and Japanese Red Cross Wakayama Medical Center . A waiver of written informed consent from each patient was granted by the institutional review boards of Kyoto University and each participating centre based on the Japanese guidelines for epidemiological study   . Thus, tACE-I/ARB for patients who were hospitalized for acute HF was associated with significantly lower risk for a composite of all-cause death and HF hospitalization in HFrEF and HFmrEF, but not in HFpEF. ACE-I/ARB might be a potential treatment option in HFmrEF as in HFrEF.S1 File(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.S1 Table(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.S2 Table(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.S3 Table(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.S4 Table(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.S5 Table(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.S6 Table(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.S1 Fig(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.S2 Fig(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.S3 Fig(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.S4 Fig(DOCX)Click here for additional data file.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-49729-2, published online 19 September 2019Correction to: The Acknowledgements section in this Article is incomplete.“The authors recognize Wesley C. Van Voorhis MD, PhD of the University of Washington for his thoughtful discussions on the development of the models.”should read:“The authors recognize Wesley C. Van Voorhis MD, PhD of the University of Washington for his thoughtful discussions on the development of the models. This work was funded by Tres Cantos Open Lab Foundation (Grant: TC246).”


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-38901-3, published online 22 February 2019Correction to: The Acknowledgements section in this Article is incomplete.“We would like to acknowledge Avril Robertson, The University of Queensland, for providing the supply of MCC950. We also acknowledge that this work was supported by BrAshA-T, Australia (RM2016001474), the A-T Children’s Project, USA (RM2016000563) and the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (GNT1020028).”should read:“We would like to acknowledge Avril Robertson, The University of Queensland, for providing the supply of MCC950. We also acknowledge that this work was supported by BrAshA-T, Australia (RM2016001474), the A-T Children’s Project, USA (RM2016000563), National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia (GNT1020028) and the Children’s Hospital Foundation (RM2018002270).”


Scientific Reportshttps://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61161-5, published online 06 March 2020Correction to: The Acknowledgements section in this Article is incomplete.“This study was funded by grants for the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county council, the ALF-agreement (ALFGBG-722391), the Swedish Research Council (621-2013-5895), Kung Gustav V:s 80-års foundation, Petrus and Augusta Hedlund’s foundation (M-2016-0353), AFA insurance research fund (dnr 150150) and IngaBritt and Arne Lundberg Foundation. Sofa Grindberg and Paula-Terese Kelly Pettersson at Danderyd’s Hospital and Lotta Falkendahl at University of Gothenburg are acknowledged for their assistance in collecting samples. Lubris BioPharma, LLC are acknowledged for providing rhPRG4. Prof Johan Bylund and Felix Klose at the Institute of Odontology, University of Gothenburg, are acknowledge for technical assistance in evaluating CG activity. Open access funding provided by University of Gothenburg.”should read:“This study was funded by grants for the Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county council, the ALF-agreement (ALFGBG-722391), the Swedish Research Council (621-2013-5895), Kung Gustav V:s 80-års foundation, Petrus and Augusta Hedlund’s foundation (M-2016-0353), AFA insurance research fund (dnr 150150) and IngaBritt and Arne Lundberg Foundation. Sofa Grindberg and Paula-Terese Kelly Pettersson at Danderyd’s Hospital and Lotta Falkendahl at University of Gothenburg are acknowledged for their assistance in collecting samples. Lubris BioPharma, LLC are acknowledged for providing rhPRG4. Prof Johan Bylund and Felix Klose at the Institute of Odontology, University of Gothenburg, are acknowledge for technical assistance in evaluating CG activity. Prof Gregory D. Jay was supported by NIH 5P30GM122732. Open access funding provided by University of Gothenburg.”


Following publication of the original article , the autThe content currently reads:This study funded by Taipei Medical University Hospital (108TMU-TMUH-16).The content should be changed to:This study funded by Taipei Medical University Hospital (109TMU-TMUH-10).The original article has been updated.


In “Use of an Electronic Clinical Decision Support System in Primary Care to Assess Inappropriate Polypharmacy in Young Seniors With Multimorbidity: Observational, Descriptive, Cross-Sectional Study” :e14130) the authors noted one issue.In the Acknowledgments section of the paper, the statement:This study was financed by the Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias Coordinated project  from the Instituto de Salud Carlos IIIhas been removed and replaced by the following statement:This study was funded by National Institute for Health Research ISCIII (Grant numbers PI15/00276 (APT), PI15/00572 (ICG), PI15/00996 (JDPT), RD16/0001/0004 (ICG), RD16/0001/0005 (APT), RD16/0001/0006 (JDPT)) Co-funded by European Regional Development Fund, (ERDF) “A way of shaping Europe”. National Plan I+D+I 2013-2016.The correction will appear in the online version of the paper on the JMIR Publications website on November 19, 2020, together with the publication of this correction notice. Because this was made after submission to PubMed, PubMed Central, and other full-text repositories, the corrected article has also been resubmitted to those repositories.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-020-69717-1, published online 18 August 2020Correction to: The original version of this Article contained errors in the spelling of the authors Maria Cywińska, José Ángel Picazo-Bueno, Vicente Micó and Piotr Zdańkowski, which were incorrectly given as Maria Cywinska, Jose-Angel Picazo-Bueno, Vicente Mico and Piotr Zdankowski.Furthermore, the Acknowledgements section was incomplete.“We would like to thank Prof. Bjorn Kemper for fruitful discussions. We acknowledge the support of Faculty of Mechatronics Warsaw University of Technology statutory funds (Dean’s grant). Codes for VHQPI demodulation will be made available upon reasonable request. The study leading to the published manuscript has beed funded, in parts, by the National Science Center Poland (NCN) (2017/25/B/ST7/02049), Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (PPN/BEK/2018/1/00511), Spanish Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FIS2017-89748-P), National Natural Science Foundation of China (61722506), Outstanding Youth Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20170034).”now reads:“We would like to thank Prof. Bjorn Kemper for fruitful discussions. We acknowledge the support of Faculty of Mechatronics Warsaw University of Technology statutory funds (Dean’s grant). Codes for VHQPI demodulation will be made available upon reasonable request. The study leading to the published manuscript has beed funded, in parts, by the National Science Center Poland (NCN) (2017/25/B/ST7/02049), Polish National Agency for Academic Exchange (PPN/BEK/2018/1/00511), Spanish Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FIS2017-89748-P), National Natural Science Foundation of China (61722506), Outstanding Youth Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK20170034). Studies were funded by FOTECH-1 project granted by Warsaw University of Technology under the program Excellence Initiative: Research University (ID-UB).”These errors have now been corrected in the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.


BMJ 2020;370:m2215, doi:10.1136/bmj.m2215, published 1 July 2020), the funding statement was incomplete and should have included the following sentence in full: “BSC is supported by UK Medical Research Council/Department for International Development (grant MR/K006924/1) and the UK Department of Health and Social Care using UK Aid funding managed by the National Institute for Health Research (grant PR-OD-1017-20006).” Furthermore, in the summary box, the third point should read: “Potential confounders should be prespecified in order to collect relevant and complete data from both adherent and non-adherent participants during the trial.”In this paper by Mo and colleagues (


Article title: Sensitive detection of Treponema pallidum DNA from the whole blood of patients with syphilis by the nested PCR assayAuthors: Wang, C., Cheng, Y., Liu, B., Wang, Y., Gong, W., Qian, Y., Guan, Z., Lu, H., Gu, X., Shi, M., & Zhou, P.Journal: Emerging Microbes & InfectionsDOI:https://doi.org/10.1038/s41426-018-0085-2This article was originally published with error in acknowledgement section. The correct version of the acknowledgement section is shown below:This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [81371862 and 81572039], the Basic Research Project of Shanghai Science and Technology Commission [15JC1403000], the Shanghai Natural Science Foundation , Clinical Research Plan of SHDC [16CR1029B], and National megaproject on key infectious diseases [2017ZX10202102-001–007].


Scientific Data 10.1038/s41597-019-0294-0, published online 22 November 2019Correction to: The spelling of King Abdullah University of Science and Technology has been corrected for author affiliations 1 and 2. This error has been corrected in both the HTML and PDF versions of this Data Descriptor.


Correction to: BMC Genomics 2, 1005 (2019)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-019-6326-5After publication of this supplement article , it is rTherefore, the correct ‘Funding’ section in this article should read:This article has not received sponsorship for publication. We thank the National Science Foundation (NSF grant IIS-1902617) and the Data Science and Informatics Core for Cancer Research (CPRIT grant RP170668) for the financial support of ICIBM 2019, as well as the support from Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (RP180734).


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-46387-2, published online 15 July 2019Correction to: This Article contains an error in the Acknowledgements section.“This project was supported by Award No. NIJ-2016-4305, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice and the National Institutes of Health Award No. P30DA033934.”should read:“This project was supported by Award No. 2016-DN-BX-0150, awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice and the National Institutes of Health Award No. P30DA033934.”


Correction to: BMC Microbiol 21, 25 (2021)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12866-020-02073-2Originally published Funding:Following publication of the original article , we wereCorrected Funding:“This work was supported by the Hunan Science and Technology Innovation Project, China (grant number 2017SK50122) and the Central South University New Medical Technology Project.”“This work was supported by the Hunan Science and Technology Innovation Project, China (grant number 2017SK50122) and the New medical technology project of the Second Xiangya Hospital.”Secondly, affiliation 1  should be removed for the author Chunmei Chen.The original article has been corrected.


In the Funding statement, the author initials CK are missing from the funder the Foundation for Physical Therapy. The publisher apologizes for the error.The correct Funding statement is: This work was supported by NIH/NICHD : K12HD073945 (AE), F31HD087069 (RL), NIH/NIAMS  T32 AR050938, Musculoskeletal Training Grant , the Foundation for Physical Therapy , and the Minnesota Partnership for Biotechnology and Medical Genomics (MHP IF #14.02) (AE).


Scientific Reports 10.1038/srep39861, published online 03 January 2017Correction to: The Acknowledgements section in this Article is incomplete."We thank Nikon Instrument (Shanghai) CO., LTD. & Chansn Instrument (China) LTD. for technical support with super resolution microscopy. We also thank Dr. Matthew D. Weitzman for sharing reagents. This work was supported by grants from Chinese Academy of Sciences (KSCXZ-EW-BR-6), Startup fund from Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Y102421081), Grants from Yunnan Provincial Government , National Science Foundation of China (NSFC 81471966) to JZ, a NSFC grant to YX (31200964), a Common Project of Panzhihua, Science and Technology Bureau of China (2012CY-S-22(9)) to HH and a Visiting professorship for senior international scientist from CAS to NWF (2012T1S0001)."should read:"We thank Nikon Instrument (Shanghai) CO., LTD. & Chansn Instrument (China) LTD. for technical support with super resolution microscopy. We also thank Dr. Matthew D. Weitzman for sharing reagents. This work was supported by grants from National Science Foundation of China , Chinese Academy of Sciences (KSCXZ-EW-BR-6), Startup fund from Kunming Institute of Zoology, Chinese Academy of Sciences (Y102421081), Grants from Yunnan Provincial Government  to JZ, a NSFC grant to YX (31200964), a Common Project of Panzhihua, Science and Technology Bureau of China (2012CY-S-22(9)) to HH and a Visiting professorship for senior international scientist from CAS to NWF (2012T1S0001)."


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-019-40114-7, published online 11 March 2019Correction to: The Acknowledgements section in this Article is incomplete.“The authors would like to thank Mrs Reyes Molina from the animal facility service at the Andalusian Centre for Nanomedicine & Biotechnology (BIONAND), Malaga, Spain. Mrs Ana Molina for the immunological analysis in IBIMA laboratories, Malaga, Spain and David Andreu from the Department of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra of Barcelona for the synthesis of Prup3 T-cell peptide. The study was funded by the Institute of Health “Carlos III” of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness: PI12/02481, PI15/00559 and PI18/00288, RETICS ARADyAL  and Sara Borrell Program (CD14/00242). Andalusian Regional Ministry of Economy and Knowledge: CTS-7433), Nicolas Monardes Program (C-0044-2012 SAS2013) and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness  and a FPI grant (JRS). Grants were cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).”should read:“The authors would like to thank Mrs Reyes Molina from the animal facility service at the Andalusian Centre for Nanomedicine & Biotechnology (BIONAND), Malaga, Spain. Mrs Ana Molina for the immunological analysis in IBIMA laboratories, Malaga, Spain and David Andreu from the Department of Experimental and Health Sciences, Universitat Pompeu Fabra of Barcelona for the synthesis of Prup3 T-cell peptide. The study was funded by the Institute of Health “Carlos III” of the Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness co-founded by Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional for the Thematic Networks and Co-operative Research Centres Una manera de hacer Europa: PI12/02481, PI15/00559 and PI18/00288, RETICS ARADyAL  and Sara Borrell Program (CD14/00242). Andalusian Regional Ministry of Health, Nicolas Monardes Program (C-0044- 2012 SAS2013). Andalusian Regional Ministry of Economy and Knowledge: CTS-7433), and the Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness  and a FPI grant (JRS). Grants were cofunded by the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF).”


Interactions were evaluated using standard logistic regression and a newly developed case-only method for breast cancer risk overall and by estrogen receptor status. After accounting for multiple testing, we did not find evidence that per-standard deviation PRS313 odds ratio differed across strata defined by individual risk factors. Goodness-of-fit tests did not reject the assumption of a multiplicative model between PRS313 and each risk factor. Variation in projected absolute lifetime risk of breast cancer associated with classical risk factors was greater for women with higher genetic risk (PRS313 and family history) and, on average, 17.5% higher in the highest vs lowest deciles of genetic risk. These findings have implications for risk prevention for women at increased risk of breast cancer. We evaluated the joint associations between a new 313-variant PRS (PRS Precision prevention and early detection of cancer is a key aim of cancer research and uses tools such as risk prediction models for risk stratification ,2. Many 313) have a fourfold increased risk of breast cancer than women at population-average risk . This new PRS has been validated by prospective studies and shown to be more predictive than the previously reported 77-SNP PRS  can be summarized by a polygenic risk score (PRS); women in the top 1% of the newly derived 313-SNP PRS  using a tail-based test (313).Departure from the assumption of multiplicative combined effects of standardized PRSgression . Individsed test . Using tsed test , we proj313 and overall and ER-specific breast cancer risk are likely to be overestimated because there was substantial overlap between the SNP discovery samples and our dataset (Associations between PRSPint < .05/16 = .003), none of the interactions between PRS313 and any classical risk factor was statistically significant except for family history    and conshistory) . However313 are based on a sample size 3 times larger than that used in previously published BCAC analyses , and by the European Communitýs Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement number 223175 (grant number HEALTH-F2-2009–223175) (COGS). The EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme funding source had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation or writing of the report.Genotyping of the OncoArray was funded by the NIH Grant U19 CA148065, and Cancer UK Grant C1287/A16563 and the PERSPECTIVE project supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (grant GPH-129344) and, the Ministère de l’Économie, Science et Innovation du Québec through Genome Québec and the PSRSIIRI-701 grant, and the Quebec Breast Cancer Foundation. Funding for the iCOGS infrastructure came from: the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement n° 223175 (HEALTH-F2-2009–223175) (COGS), Cancer Research UK , the National Institutes of Health (CA128978) and Post-Cancer GWAS initiative , the Department of Defence (W81XWH-10–1-0341), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) for the CIHR Team in Familial Risks of Breast Cancer, and Komen Foundation for the Cure, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund. The DRIVE Consortium was funded by U19 CA148065.The Australian Breast Cancer Family Study (ABCFS) was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The ABCFS was also supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, the New South Wales Cancer Council, the Victorian Health Promotion Foundation  and the Victorian Breast Cancer Research Consortium. J.L.H. is a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Senior Principal Research Fellow. M.C.S. is a NHMRC Senior Research Fellow. The ABCS study was supported by the Dutch Cancer Society . The Australian Breast Cancer Tissue Bank (ABCTB) was supported by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia, The Cancer Institute NSW and the National Breast Cancer Foundation. The AHS study is supported by the intramural research program of the National Institutes of Health, the National Cancer Institute (grant number Z01-CP010119), and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (grant number Z01-ES049030). The work of the BBCC was partly funded by ELAN-Fond of the University Hospital of Erlangen. The BCEES was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia and the Cancer Council Western Australia and acknowledges funding from the National Breast Cancer Foundation (JS). The BREast Oncology GAlician Network (BREOGAN) is funded by Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS PI12/02125/Cofinanciado FEDER; Acción Estratégica de Salud del Instituto de Salud Carlos III FIS Intrasalud (PI13/01136); Programa Grupos Emergentes, Cancer Genetics Unit, Instituto de Investigacion Biomedica Galicia Sur. Xerencia de Xestion Integrada de Vigo-SERGAS, Instituto de Salud Carlos III, Spain; Grant 10CSA012E, Consellería de Industria Programa Sectorial de Investigación Aplicada, PEME I + D e I + D Suma del Plan Gallego de Investigación, Desarrollo e Innovación Tecnológica de la Consellería de Industria de la Xunta de Galicia, Spain; Grant EC11-192. Fomento de la Investigación Clínica Independiente, Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales e Igualdad, Spain; and Grant FEDER-Innterconecta. Ministerio de Economia y Competitividad, Xunta de Galicia, Spain. CBCS is funded by the Canadian Cancer Society (grant # 313404) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. The CECILE study was supported by Fondation de France, Institut National du Cancer (INCa), Ligue Nationale contre le Cancer, Agence Nationale de Sécurité Sanitaire, de l’Alimentation, de l’Environnement et du Travail (ANSES), Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR). The CGPS was supported by the Chief Physician Johan Boserup and Lise Boserup Fund, the Danish Medical Research Council, and Herlev and Gentofte Hospital. The CNIO-BCS was supported by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III, the Red Temática de Investigación Cooperativa en Cáncer and grants from the Asociación Española Contra el Cáncer and the Fondo de Investigación Sanitario (PI11/00923 and PI12/00070). The American Cancer Society funds the creation, maintenance, and updating of the CPS-II cohort. The CTS was supported by the California Breast Cancer Act of 1993, the California Breast Cancer Research Fund (contract 97–10500) and the National Institutes of Health . Collection of cancer incidence data was supported by the California Department of Public Health as part of the statewide cancer reporting program mandated by California Health and Safety Code Section 103885. HAC receives support from the Lon V Smith Foundation (LVS39420). The coordination of EPIC is financially supported by the European Commission (DG-SANCO) and the International Agency for Research on Cancer. The national cohorts are supported by: Ligue Contre le Cancer, Institut Gustave Roussy, Mutuelle Générale de l’Education Nationale, Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (INSERM) (France); German Cancer Aid, German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) (Germany); the Hellenic Health Foundation, the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (Greece); Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro-AIRC-Italy and National Research Council ; Dutch Ministry of Public Health, Welfare and Sports (VWS), Netherlands Cancer Registry (NKR), LK Research Funds, Dutch Prevention Funds, Dutch ZON (Zorg Onderzoek Nederland), World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF), Statistics Netherlands (The Netherlands); Health Research Fund (FIS), PI13/00061 to Granada, PI13/01162 to EPIC-Murcia, Regional Governments of Andalucía, Asturias, Basque Country, Murcia and Navarra, ISCIII RETIC (RD06/0020) (Spain); Cancer Research UK , Medical Research Council  (United Kingdom). The ESTHER study was supported by a grant from the Baden Württemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Arts. Additional cases were recruited in the context of the VERDI study, which was supported by a grant from the German Cancer Aid (Deutsche Krebshilfe). The GENICA was funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany grants 01KW9975/5, 01KW9976/8, 01KW9977/0 and 01KW0114, the Robert Bosch Foundation, Stuttgart, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum (DKFZ), Heidelberg, the Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, as well as the Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus, Bonn, Germany. The GESBC was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e. V. [70492] and the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). The KARMA study was supported by Märit and Hans Rausings Initiative Against Breast Cancer. kConFab is supported by a grant from the National Breast Cancer Foundation, and previously by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), the Queensland Cancer Fund, the Cancer Councils of New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, and the Cancer Foundation of Western Australia. Financial support for the AOCS was provided by the United States Army Medical Research and Materiel Command [DAMD17-01–1-0729], Cancer Council Victoria, Queensland Cancer Fund, Cancer Council New South Wales, Cancer Council South Australia, The Cancer Foundation of Western Australia, Cancer Council Tasmania and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia . G.C.T. and P.W. are supported by the NHMRC. RB was a Cancer Institute NSW Clinical Research Fellow. LMBC is supported by the ‘Stichting tegen Kanker’. DL is supported by the FWO. The MARIE study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e. V. , the Hamburg Cancer Society, the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany [01KH0402]. The MCBCS was supported by the NIH grants CA192393, CA116167, CA176785 an NIH Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer [CA116201], and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation and a generous gift from the David F. and Margaret T. Grohne Family Foundation. MCCS cohort recruitment was funded by VicHealth and Cancer Council Victoria. The MCCS was further augmented by Australian National Health and Medical Research Council grants 209057, 396414 and 1074383 and by infrastructure provided by Cancer Council Victoria. Cases and their vital status were ascertained through the Victorian Cancer Registry and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, including the National Death Index and the Australian Cancer Database. The MEC was support by NIH grants CA63464, CA54281, CA098758, CA132839 and CA164973. The MISS study is supported by funding from ERC-2011–294576 Advanced grant, Swedish Cancer Society, Swedish Research Council, Local hospital funds, Berta Kamprad Foundation, Gunnar Nilsson. The MMHS study was supported by NIH grants CA97396, CA128931, CA116201, CA140286, and CA177150. The NBHS was supported by NIH grant R01CA100374. Biological sample preparation was conducted the Survey and Biospecimen Shared Resource, which is supported by P30 CA68485. The Northern California Breast Cancer Family Registry (NC-BCFR) and Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry (OFBCR) were supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute (USA). The content of this manuscript does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the National Cancer Institute or any of the collaborating centers in the Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR), nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply endorsement by the USA Government or the BCFR. The Carolina Breast Cancer Study was funded by Komen Foundation, the National Cancer Institute , and the North Carolina University Cancer Research Fund. The NHS was supported by NIH grants P01 CA87969, UM1 CA186107, and U19 CA148065. The NHS2 was supported by NIH grants UM1 CA176726 and U19 CA148065 and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation. The PBCS was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. Genotyping for PLCO was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health, NCI, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics. The PLCO is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics and supported by contracts from the Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health. PROCAS is funded from NIHR grant PGfAR 0707–10031. Prof. Dr D Gareth Evans is supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre in Manchester (IS-BRC-1215–20007). The SASBAC study was supported by funding from the Agency for Science, Technology and Research of Singapore (A*STAR), the US National Institute of Health (NIH) and the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation. The SBCS was supported by Sheffield Experimental Cancer Medicine Centre and Breast Cancer Now Tissue Bank. SEARCH is funded by Cancer Research UK  and supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre at the University of Cambridge. The University of Cambridge has received salary support for PDPP from the NHS in the East of England through the Clinical Academic Reserve. The Sister Study (SISTER) is supported by the Intramural Research Program of the NIH, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 and Z01-ES049033). The SMC is funded by the Swedish Cancer Foundation and the Swedish Research Council (VR 2017–00644) grant for the Swedish Infrastructure for Medical Population-based Life-course Environmental Research (SIMPLER). The UKBGS is funded by Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR), London. ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The USRT Study was funded by Intramural Research Funds of the National Cancer Institute, Department of Health and Human Services, USA. The WHI program is funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the US National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Health and Human Services . This work was also funded by NCI U19 CA148065-01.Role of the funder: The funders had no role in the design of the study; the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the manuscript; and the decision to submit the manuscript.Disclosures: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.Acknowledgments: The authors thank all the researchers, clinicians, technicians, and administrative staff involved in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium. The authors would also like to thank all study participants, researchers, clinicians, technicians, and administrative staff who participated in the parent studies  and have enabled this work to be carried out. The authors thank the staff of the Center for Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory, the CNIO genotyping unit, the McGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre, and the Mayo Clinic Genotyping Core Facility. CPSII acknowledges the contribution to this study from central cancer registries supported through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Program of Cancer Registries, as well as cancer registries supported by the National Cancer Institute Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results program. The GENICA Network thanks Dr Margarete Fischer-Bosch-Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Stuttgart, and University of Tübingen, Germany, German Cancer Consortium (DKTK) and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), gefördert durch die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) im Rahmen der Exzellenzstrategie des Bundes und der Länder - EXC 2180–390900677, Department of Internal Medicine, Evangelische Kliniken Bonn gGmbH, Johanniter Krankenhaus, Bonn, Germany, Institute of Pathology, University of Bonn, Germany, Molecular Genetics of Breast Cancer, Institute for Prevention and Occupational Medicine of the German Social Accident Insurance, Institute of the Ruhr University Bochum (IPA), Bochum, Germany, and Institute of Occupational Medicine and Maritime Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. KARMA and SASBAC studies thank the Swedish Medical Research Counsel. kConFab/AOCS wishes to thank all the kConFab research nurses and staff, the heads and staff of the Family Cancer Clinics, and the Clinical Follow Up Study  for their contributions to this resource, and the many families who contribute to kConFab. NHS and NHS2 would like to thank the following state cancer registries for their help: AL, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, IA, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, NE, NH, NJ, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, WA, WY. PROCAS thanks NIHR for funding. UKBGS thanks Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research for support and funding of the Breakthrough Generations Study. We acknowledge NHS funding to the Royal Marsden/ICR NIHR Biomedical Research Centre.Author contributions: PMK: Conceptualization; Data curation; Formal analysis; Investigation; Methodology; Project administration; Validation; Visualization; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing. NM: Data curation; Methodology; Validation; Writing—review & editing. PPC: Methodology; Validation; Visualization; Writing—review & editing. ANW: Methodology; Validation; Visualization; Writing—review & editing. SL: Data curation; Writing—review & editing. SB: Data curation; Writing—review & editing. KM: Data curation; Writing—review & editing. JD: Data curation; Writing—review & editing. MKB: Data curation; Writing—review & editing. QW: Data curation; Writing—review & editing. AJ: Writing—review & editing. ZA-F: Writing—review & editing. TA: Writing—review & editing. ILA: Data curation; Writing—review & editing. HAC: Writing—review & editing. VA: Writing—review & editing. KJA: Writing—review & editing. PLA: Writing—review & editing. LEBF: Writing—review & editing. HB: Data curation; Writing—review & editing. MWB: Writing—review & editing. AB-F: Writing—review & editing. JB: Writing—review & editing. LB: Writing—review & editing. SEB: Writing—review & editing. HB: Writing—review & editing. TB: Writing—review & editing. QC: Writing—review & editing. DC: Writing—review & editing. FC: Writing—review & editing. AC: Writing—review & editing. BDC: Writing—review & editing. JEC: Writing—review & editing. SJC: Writing—review & editing. NC: Methodology; Writing—review & editing. GC-T: Writing—review & editing. CLC: Writing—review & editing. FJC: Data curation; Writing—review & editing. AC: Writing—review & editing. SSC: Writing—review & editing. KC: Writing—review & editing. JYD: Writing—review & editing. HSE: Writing—review & editing. ABE: Writing—review & editing. AHE: Writing—review & editing. ME: Writing—review & editing. DGE: Writing—review & editing. PAF: Writing—review & editing. JF: Writing—review & editing. LF: Writing—review & editing. MG: Writing—review & editing. MG-D: Writing—review & editing. CG: Writing—review & editing. SMG: Writing—review & editing. MMG: Writing—review & editing. GGG: Writing—review & editing. AG-N: Writing—review & editing. PG: Writing—review & editing. LH: Writing—review & editing. CAH: Writing—review & editing. NH: Writing—review & editing. PH: Data curation; Writing—review & editing. UH: Writing—review & editing. SH: Writing—review & editing. JH: Writing—review & editing. BH: Writing—review & editing. RNH: Writing—review & editing. JLH: Writing—review & editing. AH: Writing—review & editing. DJH: Writing—review & editing. EMJ: Writing—review & editing. MEJ: Writing—review & editing. RK: Writing—review & editing. RK: Writing—review & editing. CMK: Writing—review & editing. Y-DK: Writing—review & editing. SK: Writing—review & editing. AWK: Writing—review & editing. DL: Writing—review & editing. LLM: Writing—review & editing. EL: Writing—review & editing. FL: Writing—review & editing. ML: Writing—review & editing. JL: Writing—review & editing. AL: Writing—review & editing. RJM: Writing—review & editing. MEM: Writing—review & editing. TM: Writing—review & editing. CM: Writing—review & editing. SLN: Writing—review & editing. WGN: Writing—review & editing. AN: Writing—review & editing. KMO: Writing—review & editing. AFO: Writing—review & editing. JEO: Writing—review & editing. HO: Writing—review & editing. NO: Writing—review & editing. CMP: Writing—review & editing. GP: Writing—review & editing. ECP: Writing—review & editing. RLP: Writing—review & editing. GR: Writing—review & editing. HSR: Writing—review & editing. KJR: Writing—review & editing. DPS: Writing—review & editing. CS: Writing—review & editing. MJS: Writing—review & editing. BS: Writing—review & editing. FS: Writing—review & editing. CS: Writing—review & editing. RJS: Writing—review & editing. X-OS: Writing—review & editing. AS: Writing—review & editing. MCS: Writing—review & editing. JJS: Writing—review & editing. JS: Writing—review & editing. AJS: Writing—review & editing. RMT: Writing—review & editing. JAT: Writing—review & editing. MAT: Writing—review & editing. CMV: Writing—review & editing. EmvV: Writing—review & editing. XW: Writing—review & editing. CRW: Writing—review & editing. CW: Writing—review & editing. WW: Writing—review & editing. SJW: Writing—review & editing. AW: Writing—review & editing. XRY: Writing—review & editing. WZ: Writing—review & editing. AZ: Writing—review & editing. AMD: Data curation; Funding acquisition; Project administration; Writing—review & editing. PDPP: Data curation; Funding acquisition; Project administration; Writing—review & editing. MKS: Data curation; Funding acquisition; Project administration; Writing—review & editing. PK: Data curation; Funding acquisition; Methodology; Project administration; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing. DFE: Data curation; Funding acquisition; Project administration; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing. RLM: Conceptualization; Data curation; Funding acquisition; Project administration; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing. MG-C: Conceptualization; Data curation; Funding acquisition; Methodology; Project administration; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; Writing—original draft; Writing—review & editing.djaa056_Supplementary_DataClick here for additional data file.


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-020-76102-5, published online 11 November 2020Correction to: The Acknowledgements section in this Article is incomplete.“This research was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2019R1F1A1060353), Brain Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (2016M3C7A1913844), grant of the Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI19C1132), Fourth Stage of Brain Korea 21 Project in Department of Intelligent Precision Healthcare, National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST) grant by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. CRC-15-04-KIST) and Chonnam National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute (BCRI20012).”should read:“This research was supported by a National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) Grant funded by the Korean government (MSIT) (No. NRF-2019R1F1A1060353/NRF-2019R1A5A2027340), Research of Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (No. 2018-ER6202-02), Brain Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Science, ICT & Future Planning (2016M3C7A1913844), grant of the Korean Health Technology R&D Project, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HI19C1132), Fourth Stage of Brain Korea 21 Project in Department of Intelligent Precision Healthcare, National Research Council of Science & Technology (NST) grant by the Korea government (MSIP) (No. CRC-15-04-KIST) and Chonnam National University Hospital Biomedical Research Institute (BCRI20012).”


This article has been corrected: The Funding information has been updated. The complete Funding list is shown below:FUNDINGThis work was supported by the Karolinska Institutes KID funding (LP), the Seve Ballesteros Foundation to MS, the Marie Curie foundation (CIG-618751 MS), the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (KAW2014.273 TH), the Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research (RB13-0224 TH), the Swedish Cancer Society (TH), the Swedish Research Council (2015-00162 TH), the Göran Gustafsson Foundation (TH), the Swedish Children’s Cancer Foundation (to TH), the Swedish Pain Relief Foundation (PR20140048 TH), the Torsten and Ragnar Söderberg Foundation (TH), and the European Research Council (TAROX-695376).84671-84684. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.19404Original article: Oncotarget. 2017; 8:84671–84684.


The article titled “Tumor-Derived CXCL1 Promotes Lung Cancer Growth via Recruitment of Tumor-Associated Neutrophils” . The ediThe experiment was repeated by Dr. Mingyan Huang and supervised by Prof. Nan Li of the National Key Laboratory of Medical Immunology, Second Military Medical University. The corrected


The following information is missing from the Funding statement: Y.C. was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MSIT) (NRF-2019R1A2C1005380).


Correction to: BMC Public Health (2020) 20:880https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-020-08975-0It was highlighted that the original article  containeAcknowledgmentswww.ace.soas.ac.ukAuthors acknowledge support from SamiunNazrinBente Kamal Tune, Senior Research Associate, BRAC James P. Grant BRAC School of Public Health, BRAC University for helping with organizing and formatting the references. This study is part of a large multi-country partnership, the SOAS Anti-Corruption Evidence (ACE) research consortium. For more information on SOAS-ACE visit: FundingThis publication is an output of the SOAS Anti-Corruption Evidence (ACE) research consortium funded by UK aid from the UK Government [Contract PO 7073]. The views presented are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies or the views of SOAS-ACE or other partner organisations.


Correction to: BMC Bioinformatics 21, 303 (2020)https://doi.org/10.1186/s12859-020-03591-6Following publication of the original article , the autThe sentence currently reads: Scientific research performed at the Computing Center of Research park of St. Petersburg State University.The sentence should read: Scientific research performed at the Computing Center of Research park of St. Petersburg State University. Development of the pipeline and publication of this supplement was funded by Russian Science Foundation grant #19–16-00049.


Correction to: Arthritis Res Ther (2016):18, 264https://doi.org/10.1186/s13075-016-1159-yFollowing publication of the original article , the autAcknowledgementsThis research was supported by a grant of the Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI), funded by the Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (grant number: HI14C1277 and HI13C1754), SNUH research grant (number: 0420160770) and Rheumatology Research Foundation (RRF-2016-01).


There is information missing from the Funding statement. The complete, correct Funding statement is as follows: This research was funded by Universiti Putra Malaysia GP-IPS Research Grant (UPM/700-2/1/GP-IPS/2016/9492300) and Fundamental Research Grant Scheme under the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia .


Correction to: Microbiome 8, 132 (2020)https://doi.org/10.1186/s40168-020-00909-7Following publication of the original article , it was FundingOpen access funding provided by Chalmers University of Technology.The project was funded by the Swedish Research Council  and the Swedish Research Council for Environment, Agricultural Sciences, and Spatial Planning . The original article  has been


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-018-25636-w, published online 08 May 2018Correction to: This Article contains an error in the order of the Figures. Figures 1 and 3 were published as Figures 3 and 1 respectively. The correct Figures 1 and 3 appear below as Figures In addition, the Acknowledgements section in this Article is incomplete.“This study was supported by the National Key Research Program of China (2017YFC0840100 and 2017YFC0840107) (L.C.); National Natural Science Foundation of China grant 81600858 (B.R.), and 81430011 (X.Z.); Recruitment Program for Young Professionals (M.F.) the Youth Grant of the Science and Technology Department of Sichuan Province, China 2017JQ0028 (L.C.). Innovative Research Team Program of Sichuan Province (L.C.).”should read:“This study was supported by the National Key Research Program of China (2017YFC0840100 and 2017YFC0840107) (L.C.); the Youth Grant of the Science and Technology, Department of Sichuan Province, China 2017JQ0028 (L.C.); National Natural Science Foundation of China grant 81870759 (L.C), 81600858 (B.R.), and 81430011 (X.Z.).”


Communication, Collaboration and Care Coordination: The Three-Point Guide to Cancer Care Provision for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians. International Journal of Integrated Care. 2020; 20(2): 10. DOI:


Scientific Reports 10.1038/s41598-020-58831-9, published online 25 February 2020Correction to: The Acknowledgements section in this Article was omitted. The Acknowledgements section should read:“The authors would like to acknowledge financial support from the European Commission, Future and Emerging Technology programme, through the projects RAMP (6112058) and SYNCH (824162) and from the Engineering and Physical Sciences Engineering Research Council programme FORTE (EP/R024642/1). All data are available at: 10.5258/SOTON/D1280”


In this introduction article, we summarize the 2020 International Conference on Intelligent Biology and Medicine (ICIBM 2020) conference which was held on August 9–10, 2020 . We then briefly describe the nine research articles included in this supplement issue. ICIBM 2020 hosted four scientific sections covering current topics in bioinformatics, computational biology, genomics, biomedical informatics, among others. A total of 75 original manuscripts were submitted to ICIBM 2020. All the papers were under rigorous review (at least three reviewers), and highly ranked manuscripts were selected for oral presentation and supplement issues. This genomics supplement issue included nine manuscripts. These articles cover methods and applications for single cell RNA sequencing, multi-omics data integration for gene regulation, gene fusion detection from long-read RNA sequencing, gene co-expression analysis of metabolic pathways in cancer, integrative genome-wide association studies (GWAS) of subcortical imaging phenotype in Alzheimer’s disease, as well as deep learning methods for protein structure prediction, metabolic pathway membership inference, and horizontal gene transfer (HGT) insertion sites prediction. The 2020 International Conference on Intelligent Biology and Medicine (ICIBM 2020), the official conference of the International Association for Intelligent Biology and Medicine (IAIBM), was successfully held virtually from August 9th to 10th, 2020 due to the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak. Since its inception in 2012, the goal of the ICIBM conference was to provide a forum that fosters interdisciplinary discussion, educational opportunities, and collaborative efforts among the fields of bioinformatics, systems biology, intelligent computing, and medical informatics, which are continuing to evolve at a rapid pace and having a significant impact in biomedical research and innovations.Building upon the successes of the conferences in the previous years –7, ICIBMBelow, we briefly summarize the scientific program of the ICIBM 2020 and provide an introduction to the nine research articles selected for this BMC Genomics supplement issue.Session I: Computational GenomicsSession II: Biomedical InformaticsSession III: Genomics and BeyondSession IV: BioinformaticsICIBM 2020 included four scientific sessions. Speakers in the regular sessions were chosen from those top ranked manuscripts after peer review. The topics in these sessions covered bioinformatics, genomics, systems biology, intelligent computing, data sciences, computational drug discovery, and biomedical informatics. The details of these sessions, including session chairs, authors, presenters, and the title and abstract of each talk were included on the conference website. The four session are:Here, we provide an editorial report of the supplements to BMC Genomics that include nine research papers selected from 75 manuscripts submitted to ICIBM 2020. Each manuscript was reviewed for two rounds. The first round of review was carried out by at least three reviewers and the manuscripts were substantially revised according to reviewers’ critiques. The revision was further reviewed by at least two reviewers (most by three reviewers) before being accepted into the supplement issue. Other selected papers were accepted in other BMC journals: BMC Bioinformatics, BMC Medical Genomics, and BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making.Below, we summarize the contribution of nine papers included in this supplement issue. These papers cover a wide spectrum of topics in bioinformatics and computational biology, and provide scalable techniques and algorithms for computational genomics.In the first paper, Cornish et al.  proposedintePareto, for the integrative analysis of RNA-seq and ChIP-seq data for different histone modifications. Specifically, the method can examine the abundance correlations of histone modification and gene expression. Then, it prioritizes genes with congruent changes in RNA-seq and ChIP-seq between two experimental conditions using Pareto optimization. The results show that integration of RNA-seq data and ChIP-seq data by Pareto optimization outperformed an unsupervised method based on Bayesian inference of a hierarchical model and a method using single omics data only.Multi-omics data integration has now become a routine technique to understand the mechanisms of gene regulation. Cao et al.  introducThe paper by Gao et al.  applied Long-read RNA-seq techniques are able to sequence full-length transcripts, so they are expected to overcome inherited limitations of short-read RNA-seq techniques. Liu et al.  introducHorizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) is generally defined as exchange of genetic materials between distant species that are not in a parent-offspring relationship. The HGT insertion sites are important to study the HGT mechanisms. Li et al.  introducThe paper by Zhang et al.  studied The paper by Cartealy et al.  proposedGenome-wide association studies (GWAS) can detect variants/genes associated with brain imaging quantitative traits (QTs) in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Meng et al.  applied To understand the biological function of proteins, it is important to accurately predict protein structure. Zhang et al.  proposedWe would like to express our sincere gratitude to the general chairs and the members of the steering, program, publication, publicity, award and trainee committees, as well as to all the reviewers, who spent their valuable time and effort on making ICIBM 2020 a success. The conference accomplishments are the results of support and hard work of all these people during the COVID-19 pandemic.Host: The International Association for Intelligent Biology and Medicine (IAIBM).General Chairs Kai Wang  and Zhongming Zhao .Steering Committee Yidong Chen , Xiaohua Tony Hu (Drexel University), Kun Huang (Indiana University), Sudhir Kumar (Temple University), Jason Moore (University of Pennsylvania), Yi Xing (University of Pennsylvania).Program Committee Co-Chairs: Xinghua (Mindy) Shi (Temple University), Li Shen (University of Pennsylvania). Members: Yongsheng Bai (University of Michigan) Xiao Chang , Bin Chen (Michigan State University), Li Chen (Indiana University School of Medicine), Yidong Chen , Jianlin Cheng (University of Missouri Columbia), Lijun Cheng (Ohio State University), Zechen Chong (The University of Alabama at Birmingham), Yulin Dai , Yang Ding , Abolfazl Doostparast , Lana Garmire (University of Michigan), Jun-Tao Guo (University of North Carolina at Charlotte), Yan Guo (University of New Mexico), Zhi Han (Indiana University School of Medicine), Matthew Hayes (Xavier University of Louisiana), Zhe He (Florida State University), Ting Hu , Heng Huang (University of Pittsburgh & JD Digits), Kun Huang (Indiana University School of Medicine), Tao Huang , Weichun Huang , Yufei Huang (University of Texas at San Antonio), Zhi-Liang Ji , Peilin Jia , Victor Jin , Yufang Jin (University of Texas at San Antonio), Travis Johnson (The Ohio State University), Dokyoon Kim (University of Pennsylvania), Rui Kuang (University of Minnesota Twin Cities), Aimin Li , Fuhai Li (Washington University School of Medicine) Jia Li (Texas A&M University), Tao Li , Li Liao (University of Delaware), Honghuang Lin (Boston University School of Medicine), Ke Liu (Michigan State University), Xiaoming Liu (University of South Florida), Yaping Liu , Zhandong Liu (Baylor College of Medicine), Shuang Luan (University of New Mexico), Qin Ma (The Ohio State University), Maciej Pietrzak (The Ohio State University), Mirjana Maletic-Savatic (Baylor College of Medicine), Patricio Manque , Huaiyu Mi , Nitish Mishra , Tabrez Anwar Shamim Mohammad (Greehey Children’s Cancer Research Institute), Zhengqing Ouyang , Hatice Gulcin Ozer (The Ohio State University), Ranadip Pal (Texas Tech University), Jiang Qian (Johns Hopkins University), Guimin Qin , Boshu Ru (Merck & Co. Inc), Jianhua Ruan (The University of Texas at San Antonio), Wei Shao (Indiana University Bloomington), Yang Shen (Texas A&M University), Xiaofeng Song , Fengzhu Sun , Zhifu Sun (Mayo Clinic), Wing-Kin Sung , Manabu Torii (Kaiser Permanente), Fuchiang Rich Tsui , Jun Wan (Indiana University School of Medicine), Jiandong Wang (University of South Carolina), Jiayin Wang , Junbai Wang , Kai Wang , Yufeng Wang (University of Texas at San Antonio), Chaochun Wei , Lei Wei (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center), Yingying Wei , Jia Wen (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), Chunhua Weng (Columbia University), Huanmei Wu (Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis), Yonghui Wu (University of Florida), Junfeng Xia , Lei Xie (City University of New York), Hua Xu , Min Xu (Carnegie Mellon University), Jianhua Xuan (Virginia Tech), Yu Xue , Jingwen Yan (Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis), Sungroh, Yoon , Liang Zhan (University of Pittsburgh), Chi Zhang (Indiana University School of Medicine), Han Zhang , Rui Zhang (Michigan Tech), Shaojie Zhang , Wei Zhang , Ying Zhang (University of Rhode Island), Zuoyi Zhang (Indiana University), Zhongming Zhao , Jim Zheng , Wanding Zhou , Yunyun Zhou (University of Mississippi), Dajiang Zhu (University of Texas at Arlington).Publication Committee Co-Chairs: Yan Guo (University of New Mexico), Wei Zhang .Workshop/Tutorial Committee Chair: Yulin Dai .Publicity Committee Co-Chairs: Yu Xue , Kwangsik Nho (Indiana University).Award Committee Chair: Jinchuan Xing (Rutgers University).Trainee Committee Chair: James Havrilla .Local Organization Committee Co-Chairs: Dokyoon Kim (University of Pennsylvania), Wanding Zhou .


Euromed Research Center, National Institute of Applied Sciences, Euro-Mediterranean University of Fez, Morocco.a.arrahli@insa.ueuromed.org.  E-mail address: In the article titled “Valorization of Oued Sebou Natural Sediments (Fez-Morocco Area) as Adsorbent of Methylene Blue Dye: Kinetic and Thermodynamic Study” , the autThe corrected list of affiliations is shown in the author information above.