Re: Atkinson et al.: Overnight Urinary Isoflavone Excretion in a Population of Women Living in the United States, and Its Relationship to Isoflavone Intake. 11: 253–260, March 2002.
We wish to call attention to an error in the units given for isoflavone intakes and in the estimation of weekly isoflavone intakes according to the diet recall. The units for isoflavone intakes determined using both assessment methods should be in μmol, not nmol (Table 2, page 257; Table 4, page 259; Figure 1, page 259; and in the text of the methods and results). The last sentence of paragraph two on page 255 should read “Weekly isoflavone intakes according to the diet recall were estimated as mean intake over the 2 days x 7”, and the data in Table 2 column 5 (“Estimated weekly intake”), page 257, should be as follows: “Soy consumers—Genistein 208.1 [183.6−235.8], range 13.9−5270.4; Daidzein 155.3 [137.0−176.0], range 9.2−3898.4. All women−Genistein 2.1 [1.4−2.9], range 0−5270.4; Daidzein 1.9 [1.3−2.6], range 0−3898.4.” These data were not used in any subsequent calculations and this change does not alter the discussion or conclusions.
Re: Zheng et al: Haplotypes of Two Variants in p16(CDKN2/MTS-1/INK4a) Exon 3 and Risk of Squamous Cell Carcinoma of the Head and Neck: A Case-Control Study. 11: 640–645, July 2002.
Note the following sentence in line 4 of paragraph 3 of the Introduction on page 640: “… furthermore, C580T polymorphism co-segregates with the C74A polymorphism of intron 1 of CDKN2B (18).” should read as “… furthermore, C540Gpolymorphism co-segregates with the C74A polymorphism of intron 1 of CDKN2B (18).”
(Note: The change is C580T to C540G)
Note the following sentence in paragraph 2 of the Materials and Methods on page 641: “For PCR, the previously described primers (17) were used: 5′-GCC TGT TTT CTT TCT GCC CTC TG-3′ (sense)…” should read as “For PCR, the previously described primers (18) were used: 5′-GCC TGT TTT CTT TCT GCC CTC TG-3′ (sense; confirmed by the reported sequences: accession number U12820)…”
(Note: The changes are 17 to 18 and the addition of “confirmed by the reported sequences: accession number U12820.”
We believe the major two important findings in our paper are not affected in any way by these two misquotes.
And please note the correct author names to an article in the October Issue:
Buccal Cell DNA Yield, Quality, and Collection Costs: Comparison of Methods for Large-scale Studies Irena B. King, Jessie Satia-Abouta, Mark D. Thornquist, Jeannette Bigler, Ruth E. Patterson, Alan R. Kristal, Ann L. Shattuck, John D. Potter, and Emily White……. . 1130