Bioscience Reports (2015) 35 (6) e00267; https://doi.org/10.1042/BSR20150194
By re-analyzing the primary data for the design of follow-up experiments, the authors noted that Figure 4G contained an inadvertent mistake and that the legends of Figures 4F and 4G were inadequately described. Panel 4F shows the average fork-progression rate ± SEM of 619–785 replication forks, with data not from three but from two independent experiments. Panel 4G should have shown the distribution of the fork-progression rate, represented as a percentage of all counted forks in panel 4F. The corrected panel and legends are shown below. These corrections do not affect the description or interpretation of the data. The authors apologize for these errors.