ON
← Back to feed
Nature News logo🔬 Science
United Kingdom🔬 Science2 days ago

Author Correction: Maturation and circuit integration of transplanted human cortical organoids

This article is an author correction published in Nature on August 3, 2026, addressing a figure preparation error in a previously published study. The original paper, which appeared online on October 12, 2022, featured a duplicated panel in Figure 5a, where the mPFC panel was inadvertently repeated from the Fig. 5a A1 panel. The correction updates the HTML and PDF versions of the article to resolve this duplication issue. The study involved research conducted by multiple researchers affiliated with Stanford University, including departments such as Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Bioengineering, Chemistry, and others. The corrected version ensures accurate representation of the data presented.

A correction has been issued for the research paper titled Cucurbituril-based anion-conducting membranes with supramolecular nanopores, which was originally published in Nature on 17 June 2026. The correction addresses several errors related to the figures and text within the article. According to the revised publication, the plots in Figure 4b and Supplementary Figures 49a, c,f were incorrectly assembled from source files. Additionally, the x-axis unit label in Extended Data Figure 4b was originally marked as “h” instead of “s.” A previously included control sample represented by blue data points has been omitted for clarity. In the final paragraph of the “Well-tempered metadynamics” section under the Methods, the description of the simulation cell has been corrected from “A cubic cell of 5 × 46 × 26 Å” to “An orthorhombic cell of 46.5 × 30 × 60 Å.” Original versions of the affected figures are available in the supplementary information accompanying the correction. These updates have been incorporated into both the HTML and PDF versions of the article. The corrected article includes multiple contributors who are listed as having made equal contributions to the work. Among them are Ziang Xu, Dongcheng Lin, Haoyu Yin, and Qingqing Feng. The researchers are affiliated with various institutions, including Tsinghua University’s Department of Chemical Engineering and its State Key Laboratory of Chemical Engineering and Low-Carbon Technology in Beijing, China. Additional affiliations include the Beijing Key Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence for Advanced Chemical Engineering Materials, the Hefei Institute for Public Safety Research and School of Safety Science at Tsinghua University in Hefei, China, and the Department of Chemistry at University College London in the United Kingdom. Other contributing institutions include CNRS, CEA, Grenoble INP, IRIG, SyMMES, and Université Grenoble Alpes in Grenoble, France, as well as the Center of Pharmaceutical Technology at Tsinghua University, the Shanghai Synchrotron Radiation Facility in Shanghai, China, and Rice University in Houston, Texas, U.S.A. The list of authors includes Ziang Xu, Dongcheng Lin, Haoyu Yin, Qingqing Feng, Fabrizia Foglia, Yihan Zhen, Adam Morris, Quentin Berrod, Maobin Pang, Lida Huang, Jing Liu, Jiekang Tian, Xiaonan Wang, Chunming Yang, Xingchen Tang, Xi Zhang, Baoguo Wang, Haotian Wang, and Kai Liu. Correspondence regarding the study should be directed to Baoguo Wang, Haotian Wang, or Kai Liu. The correction was published on 31 July 2026, replacing the initial version released on 17 June 2026. The corrected version is now considered the official record of the research findings. The original figures that were used before the correction are accessible through the supplementary information provided with the amended article. This ensures that readers can compare the original and corrected materials to understand the nature of the changes made. The error in the x-axis unit label in Extended Data Figure 4b highlights the importance of precision in scientific reporting, particularly in fields such as chemical engineering and materials science where small discrepancies can affect interpretations of experimental results. The removal of the unmentioned control sample suggests that the researchers aimed to improve the clarity of their presentation by eliminating potentially confusing elements. The change in the simulation cell dimensions indicates that the computational model used in the study was adjusted based on more accurate parameters, which could influence the conclusions drawn from the simulations. The correction process underscores the rigorous peer review and self-correction mechanisms inherent in scientific publishing. Researchers often rely on feedback from colleagues and the broader academic community to identify and rectify errors after publication. In this case, the corrections appear to have been initiated internally by the research team rather than being prompted by external criticism. The availability of the original figures alongside the corrected versions allows for transparency and facilitates further scrutiny by other scientists working in the field. The revised article will likely be referenced in future studies examining anion-conducting membranes and supramolecular structures. As the field continues to evolve, such corrections serve as reminders of the dynamic nature of scientific knowledge and the ongoing effort required to maintain accuracy in published research. The specific impact of these corrections on the interpretation of the study's results remains to be evaluated by subsequent analyses and discussions within the scientific community.

Go to the primary sources (4)

The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.

2 reports

Nature News logoNature NewsIndependentCenterFactual 95Objective 985 days ago
Author Correction: Cucurbituril-based anion-conducting membranes with supramolecular nanopores

This article is a correction to a previously published study in Nature (DOI: 10.1038/s41586-026-10666-6), which reported on cucurbituril-based anion-conducting membranes with supramolecular nanopores. The correction addresses errors in figure preparation, including mislabeled axes and incorrect source files used for Figures 4b and Supplementary Figures 49a–c,f. It also corrects a description of the simulation cell dimensions in the Methods section. The revised figures and text are now available in the updated HTML and PDF versions of the article. The study involves researchers from Tsinghua University, University College London, and other institutions, with multiple corresponding authors.

Bias read (Center): The article is a scientific correction and does not present any politically charged content or take a stance on ideological issues. It focuses solely on technical revisions to a research paper.

Why factuality (95): The correction accurately describes the changes made to the article, including specific figure corrections and text revisions. It references the original publication and provides details about what was corrected, aligning with standard academic correction practices.

Why objectivity (98): The language is neutral and factual, focusing solely on describing the corrections made without any editorializing or bias. It clearly states the nature of the errors and the actions taken to correct them.

Nature News logoNature NewsIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 952 days ago
Author Correction: Maturation and circuit integration of transplanted human cortical organoids

This article is an author correction published in Nature on August 3, 2026, addressing a figure preparation error in a previously published study. The original paper, which appeared online on October 12, 2022, featured a duplicated panel in Figure 5a, where the mPFC panel was inadvertently repeated from the Fig. 5a A1 panel. The correction updates the HTML and PDF versions of the article to resolve this duplication issue. The study involved research conducted by multiple researchers affiliated with Stanford University, including departments such as Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Bioengineering, Chemistry, and others. The corrected version ensures accurate representation of the data presented.

Bias read (Center): The article is a scientific correction regarding a technical error in figure preparation. It does not present any political viewpoints, biases, or contested claims. The content is purely factual and focuses on correcting a mistake in academic publishing, making it apolitical in nature.

Why factuality (90): The correction identifies the specific figure error and explains the change made. However, it lacks detailed specifics about the original content of the figure and does not reference the original publication directly in the text.

Why objectivity (95): The tone remains neutral and objective, focusing only on the correction process. There is no indication of bias or subjective interpretation of the issue.

How each side covered it

The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.

How each side covered it

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Covered around the world

The same event as reported in other countries.

Covered around the world

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Claims check

Key factual claims, and how many sources assert vs dispute each.

Claims check

Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.

Become a Supporter

Keep the news honest.

ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €4/month.

Become a Supporter

Related stories