Readers may have been misled by the phrasing of the penultimate paragraph in David Gems and Joshua J. McElwee's News and Views article “Ageing: Microarraying mortality” (Nature 424, 259–261; 2003). The article dealt with a paper by C. T. Murphy et al. in the same issue (Nature 424, 277–284; 2003), which described the use of microarrays and RNA interference to identify Caenorhabditis elegans longevity genes that are regulated by insulin/IGF-1 signalling. The phrase concerned was “Seeking insight into the biochemistry of ageing, Murphy et al. panned their mine of microarray data for genes that fit existing expectations — an approach sometimes referred to as 'fishing'”. This did not refer to the choice of genes for functional investigation with RNAi, which, with the exception of ins-7, involved testing clones with the greatest expression change and/or the highest overall statistical significance. Rather, the comment was directed to the discussion of the biochemical significance of the overall data.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Clarification. Nature 425, 141 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/425141a
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/425141a