Rice ragged stunt oryzavirus genome segments S7 and S10 encode non-structural proteins of M(r) 68 025 (Pns7) and M(r) 32364 (Pns10) : brief report

The nucleotide sequences of genome segments S7 and S10 of a Thai-isolate of rice ragged stunt virus (RRSV) were determined. The 1938 bp S7 sequence contains a single large open reading frame (ORF) spanning nucleotides 20 to 1 843 that is predicted to encode a protein of M(r) 68 025. The 1 162 bp S10 sequence has a major ORF spanning nucleotides 142 to 1 032 that is predicted to encode a protein of M(r) 32364. This S10 ORF is preceded by a small ORF (nt 20-55) which is probably a minicistron. Coupled in vitro transcription-translation from the two major ORFs gave protein products of the expected sizes. However, no protein was visualised from S10 when the small ORF sequence was included. Proteins were expressed in Escherichia coli from the full length ORF of S7 (P7) and from a segment of the S10 ORF (P10) fused to the ORF of glutathione S-transferase (GST). Neither fusion protein was recognised by polyclonal antibodies raised against RRSV particles. Furthermore, polyclonal antibodies raised against GST-P7 fusion protein did not recognise any virion structural polypeptides. These data strongly suggest that the proteins P7 and P10 do not form part of RRSV particle. This is further supported by observed sequence homology (though very weak) of predicted.

Corrigendum to "Mapping hippocampal and ventricular change in Alzheimer disease" [NeuroImage 22 (2004) 1754-1766] (DOI:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.03.040)

We recently noticed an error in the demographic data in this article. The validity of the findings and the conclusions of the paper is not affected. However, there is an error in the reported sample size and in the means and standard deviations of the subjects’ ages and MMSE scores. We would like to correct this error, which came to light when we were re-analyzing the data for a meta-analysis. The error occurred because an older version of a spreadsheet was incorrectly used when reporting the sample composition. Instead of examining 12 Alzheimer's disease patients and 14 healthy elderly controls, we in fact examined 17 Alzheimer’s disease patients and 14 healthy elderly controls. All maps and morphometric data reported in the paper are correct, except that the sample size was in fact slightly higher than that originally reported, and the maps computed in the paper were based on the larger sample (which included five more subjects in the Alzheimer’s disease group). All of the maps and figures in the paper are correct, and the conclusions of the paper are unchanged. We apologize for this error, which falls under the sole responsibility of the first author. The corrected demographic information appears below.