The authors and Editorial Board have agreed to the Correction text below, and the corrected Figure 1 appears below.

Figure 1.
Identification of one or more potential RSK phosphorylation sites in SOS1 using an anti-(RXXpS motif) antibody.

(A) PMA and EGF induce phosphorylation of an RXXS motif in SOS1. HEK-293 cells transfected with HA–SOS1 were starved of serum and left untreated or stimulated with PMA or EGF for the indicated times. At 20 min prior to stimulation the indicated cultures were treated with U0126 (U0), PD184352 (PD) or BI-D1870 (BI). HA–SOS1 was immunoprecipitated from whole cell extracts and immune complexes and whole cell extracts were subjected to immunoblotting (IP) with the indicated antibodies. (B) RSK1 and RSK2 contribute to MEK-dependent phosphorylation of SOS1. Cells were treated as in (A) except with the co-transfection of RNAi and an activated MEK1 allele (MEK-DD) as indicated.

Figure 1.
Identification of one or more potential RSK phosphorylation sites in SOS1 using an anti-(RXXpS motif) antibody.

(A) PMA and EGF induce phosphorylation of an RXXS motif in SOS1. HEK-293 cells transfected with HA–SOS1 were starved of serum and left untreated or stimulated with PMA or EGF for the indicated times. At 20 min prior to stimulation the indicated cultures were treated with U0126 (U0), PD184352 (PD) or BI-D1870 (BI). HA–SOS1 was immunoprecipitated from whole cell extracts and immune complexes and whole cell extracts were subjected to immunoblotting (IP) with the indicated antibodies. (B) RSK1 and RSK2 contribute to MEK-dependent phosphorylation of SOS1. Cells were treated as in (A) except with the co-transfection of RNAi and an activated MEK1 allele (MEK-DD) as indicated.

Close modal

The authors of the original article ‘RSK phosphorylates SOS1 creating 14-3-3-docking sites and negatively regulating MAPK activation’ (Biochemical Journal [2012] 447 [1]), would like to address concerns raised by a reader regarding Figure 1A in their published paper. The authors have acknowledged “an unfortunate error was made in the preparation of the figure. Fortunately, we were able to locate the original data, which show an overlap in the “5-lane window” that were used for the figure. This error caused the same lane to be shown twice”. The authors would like to apologize to readers for this error, which has now been addressed by this correction, and which does not affect the conclusions of the original paper.