By visiting our site, you agree to our privacy policy regarding cookies, tracking statistics, etc.

  • My Cart
    Shopping Basket CLOSE

    No products in the basket.

  • Sign In
Author Correction: The cost of drug patent expiration date errors
Science & Technology
Tamunofiniarisa , ,
Author Correction: The cost of drug patent expiration date errors

Technology tamfitronics

  • Author Correction
  • Published:
  • S. Sean Tu ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0391-81861,2,
  • Dinis Cheian3,
  • Sarah Gabriele1,
  • Benjamin N. Rome1 &
  • …
  • Aaron S. Kesselheim1

Nature Biotechnology (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Correction to: Nature Biotechnology https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02298-w, published online 17 July 2024.

In the version of the article initially published, the dates displayed in the “Corrected patent expiration date” column of Table 1 relied on the original patent expiration date information provided by the US Patent and Trademark Office1. While conducting subsequent research, we discovered that several of the dates provided by the USPTO were incorrect based on a manual calculation of the patent expiration dates. We have alerted the USPTO to fix its errors and now have updated the third column of our Table 1 accordingly. We have also updated Table 1 to account for regulations in place at the time of the patent expirations and to account for terminal disclaimers that we recently uncovered for two patents (for context, see new Table 1 legend footnote e). Finally, we have added a new Table 1 legend footnote f related to U.S. Patent No. 7,917,224 to clarify why we believe it deserves inclusion in our review.

Apart from the changes to the table, the changes to the text of the paper are: “These errors extended patent protection by a median of 63.5 days (range 32–190) of extra market exclusivity” has been corrected to “These errors extended patent protection by a median of 81.5 days (range 56–190) of extra market exclusivity” and “pro-rated revenue during PTA delay ranged from $37.8 million to $519.6 million” has been corrected to “pro-rated revenue during PTA delay ranged from $32.4 million to $514.8 million.” These corrections have been made to the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

Thus, although accounting for inconsistencies in the USPTO PTA data and for the new terminal disclaimers necessitates updates to the data, the primary results and conclusions remain the same: USPTO PTA errors can be important and expensive for patients and the US health care system.

References

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Program On Regulation, Therapeutics And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA

    S. Sean Tu, Sarah Gabriele, Benjamin N. Rome & Aaron S. Kesselheim

  2. West Virginia University College of Law, Morgantown, WV, USA

    S. Sean Tu

  3. New York, NY, USA

    Dinis Cheian

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Sean Tu.

About this article

Technology tamfitronics Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tu, S.S., Cheian, D., Gabriele, S. et al. Author Correction: The cost of drug patent expiration date errors. Nat Biotechnol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02459-x

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02459-x

Publisher Correction: Multistate and functional protein design using RoseTTAFold sequence space diffusion
Science & Technology
Tamunofiniarisa , ,
Publisher Correction: Multistate and functional protein design using RoseTTAFold sequence space diffusion

Technology tamfitronics

  • Publisher Correction
  • Open access
  • Published:
  • Sidney Lyuga Spring1,2,3na1,
  • Jacob Merle Gershon1,2,4na1,
  • Samuel WK tips ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9056-89591,2na1,
  • Jeremiah Nelson Sims2,5na1,
  • Lucas Arnoldt ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-6218-77291,2,6na1,
  • Samuel J. Hendel1,2,
  • Miriam K. Swim7,
  • Ge Liu1,2,
  • Muna Yase1,2,4,
  • Hongwei Wu7,
  • Claire D. Tharp7,
  • Xinting Li1,2,
  • Alex Kang ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-5487-04992,
  • Evans Brackenbrough2,
  • Asim K. Bera ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-9473-29122,
  • Stacey Gerben ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0313-62482,
  • Bruce J. Wittmann ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-8144-91578,
  • Andrew C. McShan ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-3212-98677 &
  • …
  • David Baker ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0001-7896-62171,2,9

Nature Biotechnology (2024)Cite this article

  • 91 Accesses

  • 1 Altmetric

  • Metrics details

Subjects

Correction to: Nature Biotechnology https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02395-w, published online 25 September 2024.

In the version of the article initially published, in the key to Fig. 2f the colors were swapped and have now been amended so that “W guidance” is purple and “Unconditional” is grey. In Fig. 5a, the color of “Child B” has been corrected from pink to purple, and in Fig. 5d, “β-helix” has now been amended to “β-sheet”. These corrections have been made to the HTML and PDF versions of the article.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Sidney Lyayuga Lisanza, Jacob Merle Gershon, Samuel W. K. Tipps, Jeremiah Nelson Sims, Lucas Arnoldt.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Sidney Lyayuga Lisanza, Jacob Merle Gershon, Samuel W. K. Tipps, Lucas Arnoldt, Samuel J. Hendel, Ge Liu, Muna Yase, Xinting Li & David Baker

  2. Institute for Protein Design, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Sidney Lyayuga Lisanza, Jacob Merle Gershon, Samuel W. K. Tipps, Jeremiah Nelson Sims, Lucas Arnoldt, Samuel J. Hendel, Ge Liu, Muna Yase, Xinting Li, Alex Kang, Evans Brackenbrough, Asim K. Bera, Stacey Gerben & David Baker

  3. Graduate Program in Biological Physics, Structure and Design, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Sidney Lyuga Spring

  4. Department of Molecular Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Jacob Merle Gershon & Muna Yase

  5. Molecular & Cellular Biology, Medical Scientist Training Program, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    Jeremiah Nelson Sims

  6. Faculty of Engineering Sciences, Heidelberg University, Heidelberg, Germany

    Lucas Arnoldt

  7. School of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Miriam K. Simma, Hongwei Wu, Claire D. Tharp & Andrew C. McShan

  8. Office of the Chief Scientific Officer, Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA

    Bruce J. Wittmann

  9. Howard Hughes Medical Institute, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

    David Baker

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Baker.

About this article

Technology tamfitronics Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lisanz, SL, Gershon, JM, Tipps, SWK et al. Publisher Correction: Multistate and functional protein design using RoseTTAFold sequence space diffusion. Nat Biotechnol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02456-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02456-0

Author Correction: Quantifying bias introduced by sample collection in relative and absolute microbiome measurements
Science & Technology
Tamunofiniarisa , ,
Author Correction: Quantifying bias introduced by sample collection in relative and absolute microbiome measurements

Technology tamfitronics

  • Author Correction
  • Published:

Nature Biotechnology (2024)Cite this article

Subjects

Correction to: Nature Biotechnology https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-01754-3published online 27 April 2023.

In the original published version of this article, there was a 10-fold error in the 16S rRNA gene standard curves. This was likely caused by a 1:10 serial dilution error of the standard plasmids. The error was determined from comparison of 16S rRNA gene standard curves to subsequent studies of prokaryotic concentration in our group. This discrepancy was found by Boryana Garcia Doyle, who subsequently assisted with our correction of the paper and has now been added as an author. To correct the error, we re-ran all samples through the 16S rRNA qPCR workflow with modifications: 1) For each 16S rRNA standard plasmid, serial dilutions of the plasmids were independently generated in triplicate, totaling six standard curves in each qPCR run, to confirm the standard curve. 2) Samples were run in qPCR technical duplicate instead of triplicate, as in the original manuscript, to accommodate additional wells required for the added replicates of the standard curves. The reported measurements have been updated and conclusions of the paper remain largely unchanged. We updated the conclusion of prokaryotic cell count to 1.86 1013and this result is in line with prior published estimates. Additionally, we found a significant difference in total prokaryotic concentration between unpreserved, immediately frozen samples and immediately frozen, Zymo-preserved samples. Figures 4, 5Supplementary Figs. 68and Supplementary Data 13 and Supplementary Table 4 have been updated to reflect these revisions; for comparison, original versions and a list of text edits are available in the online version of this amendment.

Supplementary information is available in the online version of this amendment.

Author information

Author notes

  1. These authors contributed equally: Dylan Maghini, Mai Dvorak.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Dylan G. Maghini & Ami S. Bhatt

  2. Department of Biology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Mai Dvorak

  3. Quantitative Sciences Unit, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Alex Dahlen

  4. Illumina, Inc., Madison, WI, USA

    Morgan Roos & Scott Kuersten

  5. School of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Boryana Doyle

  6. Department of Medicine (Hematology, Blood and Marrow Transplantation), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA

    Ami S. Bhatt

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ami S. Bhatt.

Supplementary information

About this article

Technology tamfitronics Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maghini, DG, Dvorak, M., Dahlen, A. et al. Author Correction: Quantifying bias introduced by sample collection in relative and absolute microbiome measurements. Nat Biotechnol (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02341-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-024-02341-w