The above article was published in Plant and Cell Physiology 48(11): .
Figure 1 was shown incorrectly online. The figure legend in Figure 1C was missing. The correct figure is given below.
Construction of transgenic lines carrying recombinant genes encoding PRR9-TAP and TOC1(PRR1)-TAP fusion polypeptides. (A) Schematic representation of the transgenes constructed in this study. These composite transgenes were constructed using a conventional binary vector (pHM4) and then introduced into A. thaliana plants in accordance with standard methods (Makino et al. 2002). (B) PRR9-TAP transgenic plants were grown under the 12 h light/12 h dark (LD) cycle for 20 d, and then RNA samples were prepared at 2 h intervals from 1 h after lights off, as indicated (open rectangles, light; filled rectangles, dark). RNA samples were analyzed by Northern blotting hybridization with a probe specific to the region corresponding to the PRR9 coding sequence. (C) Free-running rhythmic profiles in LL. Together with wild-type Col plants, the prr9-10 mutant and its transgenic derivative carrying the 35S::PRR9-TAP transgene were analyzed for their free-running circadian rhythms by monitoring bioluminescence of CCA1::LUC, which had been integrated into the chromosome of each transgenic line. These plants were grown under an LD cycle for 10 d and then were moved to continuous (LL) light to monitor bioluminescence in real time, as indicated (the shaded rectangles correspond to subjective night). These assays of circadian rhythms were carried out using procedures and equipment described previously (Nakamichi et al. 2005). (D) Identification of PRR9-TAP and PRR1-TAP polypeptides in plant extacts by Western blotting analysis with an antibody against the TAP-tag epitope. Established 35S::PRR9-TAP and TOC1-TAP transgenic plants were grown under an LD cycle for 20 d and then plants were harvested at appropriate times for 35S::PRR9-TAP (1 h after lights on) and TOC1-TAP (2 h after lights off). Protein samples were analyzed by SDS–PAGE followed by Western blotting analysis. Several independent transgenic lines were examined with consistent results; the results from representative lines are shown, namely, 35S::PRR9-TAP(#3-3) and TOC1-TAP(#15-4).
The publisher apologises for this error.
