Correction: Effect of end-of-production light treatment under different light/dark alternating frequencies on ascorbic acid accumulation and metabolism of hydroponic lettuce

A Correction on
Effect of end-of-production light treatment under different light/dark alternating frequencies on ascorbic acid accumulation and metabolism of hydroponic lettuce

By Yu D, Li Z, Hu J, Wang F, Lu W, Yuan Q, Wang S, Zhou C and Yang Q (2025) Front. Plant Sci. 16:1681893. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2025.1681893

There was a mistake in the citations for Figures 2–7 as published. The order of the figures was updated; however the citations were not updated and some citations were not put into parentheses. “EOP light/dark alternation differentially regulated GLDH in lettuce leaves Figure 2” has been updated to “EOP light/dark alternation differentially regulated GLDH in lettuce leaves (Figure 2)”. “In contrast, APX enzyme activity was significantly higher in RB2 than in RB4 and RB8 but was comparable to that in RB1 (Figure 2A)” has been updated to “In contrast, APX enzyme activity was significantly higher in RB2 than in RB4 and RB8 but was comparable to that in RB1 (Figure 3A)”. “while no significant differences were observed among the latter three treatments (Figure 2B)” has been updated to “while no significant differences were observed among the latter three treatments (Figure 3B)”. “but both were significantly higher than in RB1 and RB8 (Figure 2C)” has been updated to “but both were significantly higher than in RB1 and RB8 (Figure 3C)”. “Finally, although GR gene expression varied significantly across treatments, no corresponding significant differences were detected in its enzyme activity (Figure 2D)” has been updated to “Finally, although GR gene expression varied significantly across treatments, no corresponding significant differences were detected in its enzyme activity (Figure 3D)”. “Different light/dark alternating treatments at the EOP stage had a significant effect on the soluble sugar content of hydroponic lettuce (Figure 3)” has been updated to “Different light/dark alternating treatments at the EOP stage had a significant effect on the soluble sugar content of hydroponic lettuce (Figure 4)”. “followed by RB1 Supplementary Table S2” has been updated to “followed by RB1 (Supplementary Table S2)”. “The contents of reactive oxygen species and MDA in response to different light/dark alternation treatments are shown in Figure 4” has been updated to “The contents of reactive oxygen species and MDA in response to different light/dark alternation treatments are shown in Figure 5”. “As the light/dark alternation frequency increased, MDA content in lettuce leaves gradually decreased (Figure 4C)” has been updated to “As the light/dark alternation frequency increased, MDA content in lettuce leaves gradually decreased (Figure 5C)”. “and RB8 treatments Supplementary Table S3” has been updated to “and RB8 treatments (Supplementary Table S3)”. “Correlation analysis revealed that AsA and T-AsA showed highly significant positive correlations with GLDH, APX, MDHAR, and DHAR (r ≥ 0.72, p < 0.01) Figure 6” has been updated to “Correlation analysis revealed that AsA and T-AsA showed highly significant positive correlations with GLDH, APX, MDHAR, and DHAR (r ≥ 0.72, p < 0.01 Figure 6)”. “Fitting analysis revealed distinct curvilinear responses of lettuce physiological indices to the duration of the final light period (Figure 5)” has been updated to “Fitting analysis revealed distinct curvilinear responses of lettuce physiological indices to the duration of the final light period (Figure 7)”. “In this study, the RB2 treatment produced the highest AsA induction (increased by 11.8%, 28.5%, and 41.6% compared to RB1, RB4, and RB8, respectively), achieved through synchronized increases in GLDH expression/activity (Figure 6) and coordinated upregulation of the APX/MDHAR/DHAR system(Figures 2A–C)” has been updated to “In this study, the RB2 treatment produced the highest AsA induction (increased by 11.8%, 28.5%, and 41.6% compared to RB1, RB4, and RB8, respectively), achieved through synchronized increases in GLDH expression/activity (Figure 2) and coordinated upregulation of the APX/MDHAR/DHAR system (Figures 3A–C)”. “The subsequent light period then restores the activation of both biosynthetic and recycling pathways (Figure 6)” has been updated to “The subsequent light period then restores the activation of both biosynthetic and recycling pathways (Figure 2)”. “exceeded lettuce’s oxidative stress tolerance threshold and induced photooxidative stress (Figure 4)” has been updated to “exceeded lettuce’s oxidative stress tolerance threshold and induced photooxidative stress (Figure 5)”. “continuous accumulation of O₂-, H₂O₂, and MDA (Figure 5)” has been updated to “continuous accumulation of O₂-, H₂O₂, and MDA (Figure 7)”. “showing a particularly strong correlation with O₂- (Figure 7)” has been updated to “showing a particularly strong correlation with O₂- (Figure 6)”. “Consequently, as the light/dark alternation frequency increased, leading to a reduction in oxidative stress (Figure 4)” has been updated to “Consequently, as the light/dark alternation frequency increased, leading to a reduction in oxidative stress (Figure 5)”. “significant positive correlations with both soluble sugar content and the activities of key antioxidant enzymes (Figure 7)” has been updated to “significant positive correlations with both soluble sugar content and the activities of key antioxidant enzymes (Figure 6)”.

Figure 2

Figure 2. GLDH expression and GLDH activity in lettuce leaves of plants grown under different light treatments at the end-of-production (EOP) stage:RB1 (continuous illumination),RB2(4h light followed by 4h dark and concluding with a final 4h light),RB4 (three cycles of 2h light/2h dark plus a final 2h light), and RB8 (seven cycles of 1h light/1h dark with a final 1h light). The dotted line indicates the sampling before EOP irradiation. Different letters indicate significant differences using Duncan’s multiple range test (p < 0.05;n=4). Gene expression analyses were performed with four biological replicates, each including three technical replicates.

The image for Figure 2 is incorrect as published. The figure image of Figure 4 was duplicated to Figure 2. The correct version of Figure 2 can be seen below.

The original version of this article has been updated.