Corrigendum to: Pollen analysis using multispectral imaging flow cytometry and deep learning

Abstract

New Phytologist (2021) 229: 593–606, doi: 10.1111/nph.16882

Since its publication, the authors of Dunker et al. (2020) have identified an error in their article. In the ‘Materials and Methods’ subsection, ‘Sample preparation’, a typographical error was present within two of the compounds listed. The correct text is given below.

We apologize to our readers for this error.

Author for correspondence:

Susanne Dunker

Email: [email protected]

Corrected text from Materials and Methods, p. 595:

Sample preparation

Depending on the plant species, anthers from 1 to 5 flowers/species were removed using clean forceps and placed in a 2-ml Eppendorf tube. Pollen isolation buffer (PIB) was prepared according to Aloisi et al. (2015) (100 mM KH₂PO₄, pH 7.5; 1 mM EDTA; 0.1% (v/v) Triton X-100) with the modification of using KH₂PO₄ instead of Na₂HPO₄; 500 μl of the buffer was added to each tube. The Eppendorf tubes containing the pollen samples were vortexed and then sonicated for 5 min at room temperature in an ultrasonic bath (Sonorex Digitec DT 514 BH, Bandelin, Berlin, Germany) to separate aggregated pollen grains. Subsequently, the samples were filtered through a 50-μm filter (CellTrics, Sysmex, Norderstedt, Germany) in a 1.5-ml Eppendorf tube and centrifuged for 2 min at 4000 g (Centrifuge Pico 21, ThermoFisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA). The supernatant was carefully discarded, and 70 μl of Dulbecco's phosphate-buffered saline (without calcium and magnesium) (Biowest, Nuaillé, France) was added as a standard reagent for flow cytometry to the pellet. If the pollen concentration was low in the final samples, anthers from more flowers were removed with forceps and placed in a 50-ml Falcon tube and processed in the same way as the original samples.

The New Phytologist Foundation remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in maps and in any institutional affiliations.