Correction Fixes Funding and Contact Details for HUC-MSC Aging Frailty Immunity Paper

Corrections like this one are a routine part of scientific publishing. They keep funding disclosures and author contact information accurate, which matters for transparency and for tracing potential conflicts of interest. This notice relates to a paper on human umbilical cord mesenchymal stem cell (HUC-MSC) therapy and its effects on adaptive and innate immunity in aging frailty. The notice itself contains no scientific content.

The correction has two parts. First, the original funding statement was wrong. The correct funder is the Shanghai "Rising Stars of Medical Talents" Youth Development Program (Youth Medical Talents, General Practitioner Program). The corrected statement also lists the other funders: the Peak Disciplines (Type IV) of Institutions of Higher Learning in Shanghai (Stem Cells and Translation), the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities, the Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai, the Tongji University Medicine-X Interdisciplinary Research Initiative, and the National Key Research and Development Program of China.

Second, the correspondence emails for Zhongmin Liu and Hailiang Liu were incorrect. The corrected list gives three corresponding authors, Zhongmin Liu, Hua Jiang and Hailiang Liu, all with Tongji University addresses. The journal states that the original article has been updated to reflect both changes.

The notice has no study design, participants, outcomes, or conclusions. It cannot tell us whether HUC-MSC therapy restores immune function, reduces frailty, or is safe in older adults. Any such conclusions must come from the original paper, which should be read directly and judged on its own methods, including sample size, controls, and whether the findings are preclinical or clinical.

For readers, the main practical point is that the funding record and author contact details for the original paper have changed, so anyone citing or following up on that work should use the corrected version. Nothing in this notice suggests that the original scientific findings were altered or retracted.