A correction has been issued for a research article published in Nature on January 14, 2026, concerning polyamine-dependent metabolic shielding and its influence on alternative splicing. The original publication contained an error in Figure 1g, where the labels for three right-hand data points were incorrectly labeled as "24 h" instead of "SAT1," "SMARCA1," and "ACTB."

The correction, detailed in a notice released by Nature, addresses inaccuracies within the graphical representation of experimental results. Alternative splicing, a crucial biological process, allows a single gene to code for multiple proteins, expanding the functional diversity of the proteome. Polyamines, organic compounds essential for cell growth and differentiation, play a role in this process, influencing which protein variants are produced. The corrected figure provides accurate labeling of key proteins involved in the study of this relationship.

The research, conducted by Amaia Zabala-Letona, Mikel Pujana-Vaquerizo, and colleagues at the Center for Cooperative Research in Biosciences (CIC bioGUNE) in Derio, Spain, explores the intricate connection between cellular metabolism and RNA processing. Specifically, the study investigates how polyamines, through a mechanism termed "metabolic shielding," regulate alternative splicing events. This shielding process protects RNA from degradation, influencing the production of specific protein isoforms.

The initial error in Figure 1g could have led to misinterpretations of the experimental data. The corrected labels now accurately reflect the proteins being analyzed – SAT1 (Spermidine/spermine N1-acetyltransferase 1), SMARCA1 (SWI/SNF Related, Matrix Associated, Actin Dependent Regulator Of Chromatin, Subfamily A, Member 1), and ACTB (Actin Beta). These proteins are involved in various cellular processes, including polyamine metabolism, chromatin remodeling, and cytoskeletal structure.

Researchers in the fields of metabolomics and RNA biology rely on the accuracy of published data to build upon existing knowledge and develop new hypotheses. Errors, even seemingly minor ones, can have cascading effects, potentially leading to wasted time and resources. The prompt correction by Nature underscores the importance of rigorous peer review and editorial oversight in scientific publishing.

The corrected HTML and PDF versions of the article are now available on the Nature website. Scientists are advised to refer to the updated version of the article, particularly Figure 1, to ensure accurate interpretation of the research findings. The authors and the journal have taken steps to rectify the error and maintain the integrity of the published scientific record. The publisher encourages readers to review the corrected figure to ensure accurate understanding of the data presented.