HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content

Volume 44, July 2001

Pages E100–E112: Rolf Gruetter, Elizabeth R. Seaquist, and Kamil Ugurbil. "A mathematical model of compartmentalized neurotransmitter metabolism in the human brain." In the interest of clarity, we wish to correct a number of errors.

Correction 1: On page E102, Figure 1B was missing an arrow pointing from OG₃ to OAA₂. The corrected Fig. 1B follows

View larger version (17K): [in this window] [in a new window]

The bidirectional arrow between OG₃ and OAA₂ was mentioned in the caption, but a clearer statement should have read, "Label coming from OG C3 is randomized at the succinate level (similar to the label from OG C4). Hence label transfer from OG C3 to OAA C2 is taken into account by the bidirectional arrow between OG C3 and OAA C2."

Correction 2: On page E105, Eqs. 18 and 19 should be replaced with

(18)

(19)

The actual programming used in obtaining the results was based on the correct expressions.

Correction 3: On page E108 (second column, line 24), the calculation of ATP fluxes was incorrect. The glial oxidative ATP synthesis should be V_g x 14.5 + V_PC x 9.5. With this assumption, the ATP synthesis in the glial compartment (lines 28 and 29) calculates to 2.3 µmol·g^–1·min^–1. Likewise, the calculation of neuronal ATP production (paragraph 2, line 3) should have been 14.5 x V_PDH, which amounts to a neuronal ATP synthesis of 8.3 µmol·g^–1·min^–1. The findings, specifically the importance of glial metabolism relative to neurons, are unaffected by these errors.

Correction 4: On page E110 (column 1, lines 11 and 7 from the bottom), it should read Glu⁽ⁿ⁾ = (1 – ) Glu_tot and Gln^(g) = (1 – ) Gln_tot, respectively; accordingly, the footnote to Table 6 on E109 should read Gln^(g)= (1 – )Gln_tot.

We regret any confusion these errors may have created. No findings or conclusions of the paper are affected.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Search for Related Content