Correction to: Acta Pharmacol Sin https://doi.org/10.1038/aps.2017.32, published online 26 June 2017

The authors regret that there were some immunohistochemical figures errors in Fig. 2C and Fig. 6D owing to the mistakes of copying and pasting in the process of assembling figures. In Fig. 2C, the “Trans-SG” group of Ki67 staining is repeated with “LPS + Trans-SG” group in Fig. 2C. In Fig. 6D, the “LPS + Cis-SG + Pioglitazone” group of TUNEL staining is repeated with “Trans-SG” group in Fig. 2D. The “LPS” group of TUNEL staining in Fig. 2D is repeated with “LPS” group in Fig. 6D. All the authors agree on the correction of our negligence, and the correct Fig. 2C “Trans-SG”, Fig. 6D “LPS + Cis-SG + Pioglitazone” and “LPS” groups are provided. The revisions do not affect any results and conclusions of the current work.

Fig. 2
figure 2

(C) Representative micrographs of positive Ki67 staining (indicative of cell proliferation) in liver tissues obtained from rats treated with different conditions (200×). The integral optical density (IOD) of Ki67 was calculated by Image-Pro Plus 6.0. The cellular apoptosis rate was calculated by using Image-Pro Plus 6.0 and is represented as the apoptosis rate%. The results are represented as mean ± SEM (n = 8). *P < 0.05 vs control. #P < 0.05 vs LPS as determined by ANOVA

Fig. 6
figure 6

(D) Representative micrographs of positive TUNEL staining (indicative of cell apoptosis) in liver tissues obtained from rats subjected to different treatment conditions. The cellular apoptosis rate was calculated by Image-Pro Plus 6.0 and represented as apoptosis rate. The results are represented as mean ± SEM. n = 8. *P < 0.05 vs LPS. #P < 0.05 vs LPS+cis-SG+pioglitazone as determined by ANOVA

The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused to the journal and readers.

Fig. 2C and Fig. 6D are revised as