Your new experience awaits. Try the new design now and help us make it even better

CORRECTION article

Front. Nutr., 17 November 2025

Sec. Nutrition and Metabolism

Volume 12 - 2025 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2025.1704849

Correction: Differential effects of prophylactic iron supplementation on physiological gestational anemia and post IDA gestational anemia: a study based on a rat model

  • Chengdu University of Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China

There was a mistake in Figure 1 as published. The Figure 1 part label images C & D were missing. The corrected figure and its caption appear below.

Figure 1
Bar graphs compare mRNA expression levels for FPN1, DMT1, and TFR1 across two panels, A and B. Panel A shows data for PPG, LFN27 4W, LFN27 6W, SLF36 4W, and SLF36 6W, with similar expression levels and error bars indicating variability. Panel B features PPG, IDA-PG, LFN27, and SLF36, showing slightly different expression trends with some significant markers (#) noted for TFR1 and DMT1 in LFN27 and SLF36.

Figure 1. Effects of iron supplements on the fertility of pregnant anemia rats. (A, C) Physiological pregnancy anemia model. (B, D) Pregnancy anemia model after IDA. Compared with the physiological pregnancy group, *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.

There was a mistake in Figure 2 as published. The Figure 2 part label images C and D were missing. The corrected figure and its caption appear below.

Figure 2
Four bar graphs labeled A, B, C, and D compare fertility metrics. A and B show the number of corpora lutea and implantations; bars are blue and orange. C and D display implantation mortality rates in green. Graph A compares PPG, LFN27 at 4 and 6 weeks, SLF36 at 4 and 6 weeks. Graph B compares PPG, IDA PG, LFN27, and SLF36. Error bars indicate variability.

Figure 2. Effect of iron supplements on the number of embryos in pregnant anemic rats. (A, C) Physiological pregnancy anemia model. (B, D) Pregnancy anemia model after IDA. Compared with the physiological pregnancy group, **P < 0.01.

There was a mistake in Figure 3 as published. In Figures 3C, D images, the symbol “#” should have been used in the pregnancy anemia model after IDA. The corrected Figure 3 appears below.

Figure 3
Four bar graphs illustrate two metrics: absorption number and number of live births. Graph A shows absorption numbers for PPG, LFN27 4W, LFN27 6W, SLF36 4W, and SLF36 6W. Graph B presents absorption numbers for PPG, IDA PG, LFN27, and SLF36. Graph C illustrates the number of live births for PPG, LFN27 4W, LFN27 6W, SLF36 4W, and SLF36 6W, with SLF36 6W marked with double asterisks. Graph D shows live birth numbers for PPG, IDA PG, LFN27, and SLF36. Error bars indicate variability.

Figure 3. Effects of iron supplements on embryo and offspring development in pregnant anemia rats. (A, B) Physiological pregnancy anemia model. (C, D) Pregnancy anemia model after IDA. Compared with the physiological pregnancy group, *P < 0.05; compared with the IDA pregnancy group, #P < 0.05; ##P < 0.01.

There was a mistake in Figure 6 as published. In Figures 6C, D images, the symbol “#” should have been used in the pregnancy anemia model after IDA. The corrected Figure 6 appears below.

Figure 6
Four bar charts labeled A, B, C, and D compare various metrics across different groups. Chart A shows uterine weight, average placenta weight per litter, and average litter weight. Chart B displays uterine fetal weight and average number of top-buttock dimples. Charts C and D follow the same parameters as A and B, respectively, but include different groupings. Error bars indicate variability, and some data points are marked with symbols for emphasis.

Figure 6. Effects of GD20 iron supplement on serum iron-related indicators in pregnant anemia rats. (A, B) Physiological pregnancy anemia model. (C, D) Pregnancy anemia model after IDA. Compared with the physiological pregnancy group, *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01. Compared with the IDA pregnancy group, #P < 0.05; ##P < 0.01.

There was a mistake in Figure 7 as published. In Figure 7B image, the symbol “#” should have been used in the pregnancy anemia model after IDA. The corrected Figure 7 appears below.

Figure 7
Four-panel bar charts comparing different groups and conditions. Panel A shows levels of SI, FE, and TIBC across groups NPG, PPG, LFN27 at four and six weeks, and SLF36 at four and six weeks. Panel B displays TSAT percentages for the same groups. Panel C compares SI, FE, and TIBC between NPG, PPG, IDA-PG, LFN27, and SLF36. Panel D shows TSAT percentages for these groups. Error bars are present on all bars.

Figure 7. Effect of GD20 iron supplement on tissue iron content in pregnant anemic rats. (A) Physiological pregnancy anemia model. (B) Pregnancy anemia model after IDA. Compared with the physiological pregnancy group, *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01. Compared with the IDA pregnancy group, #P < 0.05; ##P < 0.01.

There was a mistake in Figure 8 as published. In Figure 8D, CPXI on the vertical axis should be GPX1. The corrected Figure 8 appears below.

Figure 8
Bar graphs labeled A and B compare six tissue types across different treatments. Graph A shows higher kidney values, while graph B displays similar trends. Categories include NPG, PPG, LFN27, SLF36, and others, with liver, spleen, kidney, small intestine, and translation represented. Error bars indicate variability.

Figure 8. Effects of GD20 iron supplement on liver oxidative stress related indicators in physiological pregnancy group. (A) T-AOC; (B) SOD; (C) MDA; (D) GPX1. Compared with the physiological pregnancy group, *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01.

There was a mistake in Figure 9 as published. In Figure 9D, CPXI on the vertical axis should be GPX1. The corrected Figure 9 appears below.

Figure 9
Four bar graphs labeled A, B, C, and D, display data across different groups: NPG, PPG, LFN27 4W, LFN27 6W, SLF36 4W, and SLF36 6W. Graph A shows T-AOC levels; B shows SOD levels; C shows MDA levels; D shows GPX1 levels. Each graph indicates mean values with error bars, and some bars are marked with asterisks indicating statistical significance.

Figure 9. Effects of GD20 iron supplement on liver oxidative stress related indicators in pregnancy anemia model after IDA. (A) T-AOC; (B) SOD; (C) MDA; (D) GPX1. Compared with the IDA pregnancy group, #P < 0.05; ##P < 0.01.

There was a mistake in Figure 11 as published. In Figure 11B image, the symbol “#” should have been used in the pregnancy anemia model after IDA. The corrected Figure 11 appears below.

Figure 11
Bar charts display antioxidant activity across five groups: NPG, PPG, IDA-PG, LFN27, and SLF36. Chart A shows T-AOC levels; Chart B shows SOD activity; Chart C shows MDA levels, and Chart D shows GPX1 levels. Error bars indicate variability, with significant differences marked by symbols.

Figure 11. Effects of LFN and SLF on serum iron metabolism-related indicators in pregnancy anemia model after IDA. (A) TF; (B) TFR1; (C) EPO. Compared with the IDA pregnancy group, #P < 0.05; ##P < 0.01.

There was a mistake in Figure 12 as published. In Figure 12B image, the symbol “#” should have been used in the pregnancy anemia model after IDA. The corrected Figure 12 appears below.

Figure 12
Bar graphs labeled A and B show mRNA expression levels across different groups, with categories NPG, PPG, LFN27, SLF36, and more. Four data sets are represented by colored bars: blue (FPN1), orange (DMT1+IRE), gray (DMT1-IRE), and green (DMT1). Error bars indicate variation.

Figure 12. Effects of iron supplements on mRNA expression of liver iron metabolism-related indicators in pregnant anemic rats. (A) Physiological pregnancy anemia model; (B) pregnancy anemia model after IDA. Compared with the physiological pregnancy group, *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; compared with the IDA pregnancy group, #P < 0.05; ##P < 0.01.

There was a mistake in Figure 13 as published. In Figure 13B image, the symbol “#” should have been used in the pregnancy anemia model after IDA. The corrected Figure 13 appears below.

Figure 13
Bar charts displaying measurements of TF, TFR1, and EPO in ng/mL or pg/mL across five groups: NPG, PPG, IDA-PG, LFN27, and SLF36. Each chart indicates variations and statistical significance denoted by symbols.

Figure 13. Effects of iron supplements on mRNA expression of iron metabolism-related indicators in the small intestine of pregnant anemia rats. (A) Physiological pregnancy anemia model; (B) pregnancy anemia model after IDA. Compared with the physiological pregnancy group, *P < 0.05; **P < 0.01; compared with the IDA pregnancy group, #P < 0.05; ##P < 0.01.

There was a mistake in Figure 14 as published. In Figure 14B image, the symbol “#” should have been used in the pregnancy anemia model after IDA. The corrected Figure 14 appears below.

Figure 14
Bar graphs showing mRNA expression levels of HAMP, FPN1, and TFR1 in two panels, A and B. Panel A includes NPG, PPG, LFN27 4W, LFN27 6W, SLF36 4W, and SLF36 6W. Panel B includes NPG, PPG, IDA-PG, LFN27, and SLF36. Error bars indicate variability, with significant differences marked by asterisks.

Figure 14. Effects of iron supplements on mRNA expression of iron metabolism-related indicators in the placenta of pregnant anemic rats. (A) Physiological pregnancy anemia model; (B) pregnancy anemia model after IDA. Compared with the IDA pregnancy group, #P < 0.05.

Supplementary Table 1 was erroneously published with the original version of this paper. The file has now been replaced.

The original version of this article has been updated.

Generative AI statement

Any alternative text (alt text) provided alongside figures in this article has been generated by Frontiers with the support of artificial intelligence and reasonable efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, including review by the authors wherever possible. If you identify any issues, please contact us.

Publisher's note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Keywords: pregnancy anemia, iron deficiency anemia, iron metabolism, iron supplements, fertility

Citation: Zhang Z, Lai L, Liu Z, Liu S, Qu L and Zou W (2025) Correction: Differential effects of prophylactic iron supplementation on physiological gestational anemia and post IDA gestational anemia: a study based on a rat model. Front. Nutr. 12:1704849. doi: 10.3389/fnut.2025.1704849

Received: 26 September 2025; Accepted: 13 October 2025;
Published: 17 November 2025.

Edited by:

Xinran Liu, Peking University People's Hospital, China

Reviewed by:

Ameer Shwayel, Health Researcher, United States
Sukhraj Dhillon, Government Medical College, Amritsar, India

Copyright © 2025 Zhang, Lai, Liu, Liu, Qu and Zou. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Liping Qu, cXVsaXBpbmcyMDE4QDE2My5jb20=; Wenjun Zou, em91d2VuanVuQDE2My5jb20=

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.