Erratum to: Tree Genetics & Genomes (2013) 9:1075–1088
DOI 10.1007/s11295-013-0622-z
Unfortunately, we had made an erroneous description in the Introduction, Results and discussion sections.
“The caprifig (hermaphroditic) type, the presumptive ancestral species, has male flowers and long-style female flowers, whereas the fig type (female) has only short-style female flowers.”
“To evaluate the validity of the extracted gene lists, we randomly selected 18 ESTs (ten caprifig-specific and seven common-specific) and investigated them by RT-PCR.”
These sentences should be read:
“The caprifig (hermaphroditic) type, the presumptive ancestral species, has male flowers and short-styled female flowers, whereas the fig type (female) has only long-styled female flowers.”
“To evaluate the validity of the extracted gene lists, we randomly selected 18 ESTs (ten caprifig-specific and eight common-specific) and investigated them by RT-PCR.”
In accordance with the latter correction, Supplemental Table 1 should be replaced with a new table (Attached file).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The online version of the original article can be found at http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11295-013-0622-z.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary Table S1
(PPT 151 kb)
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ikegami, H., Habu, T., Mori, K. et al. Erratum to: De novo sequencing and comparative analysis of expressed sequence tags from gynodioecious fig (Ficus carica L.) fruits: caprifig and common fig. Tree Genetics & Genomes 11, 132 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-015-0958-7
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11295-015-0958-7