In this Letter, the number of mice monitored in Fig. 1a should have stated: ‘n = 31 BL/6C57 and n = 29 BL/6NZB’, rather than: ‘n = 31 per genotype (19 males, 12 females)’. In addition, in Extended Data Table 1, the non-synonymous mutation at nucleotide position 9985 (mt-Nd4l) was inadvertently omitted. Both of these errors have been corrected in the online versions of the Letter.

About this article

Publication history

Published

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1038/nature20773

Authors

  1. Search for Ana Latorre-Pellicer in:

  2. Search for Raquel Moreno-Loshuertos in:

  3. Search for Ana Victoria Lechuga-Vieco in:

  4. Search for Fátima Sánchez-Cabo in:

  5. Search for Carlos Torroja in:

  6. Search for Rebeca Acín-Pérez in:

  7. Search for Enrique Calvo in:

  8. Search for Esther Aix in:

  9. Search for Andrés González-Guerra in:

  10. Search for Angela Logan in:

  11. Search for María Luisa Bernad-Miana in:

  12. Search for Eduardo Romanos in:

  13. Search for Raquel Cruz in:

  14. Search for Sara Cogliati in:

  15. Search for Beatriz Sobrino in:

  16. Search for Ángel Carracedo in:

  17. Search for Acisclo Pérez-Martos in:

  18. Search for Patricio Fernández-Silva in:

  19. Search for Jesús Ruíz-Cabello in:

  20. Search for Michael P. Murphy in:

  21. Search for Ignacio Flores in:

  22. Search for Jesús Vázquez in:

  23. Search for José Antonio Enríquez in:

Comments

By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.