Open Access

Erratum to: Ancient DNA studies: new perspectives on old samples

  • Ermanno Rizzi1,
  • Martina Lari2,
  • Elena Gigli2,
  • Gianluca De Bellis1 and
  • David Caramelli2Email author
Genetics Selection Evolution201345:4

DOI: 10.1186/1297-9686-45-4

Received: 13 February 2013

Accepted: 13 February 2013

Published: 18 February 2013

The original article was published in Genetics Selection Evolution 2012 44:21

Correction

Since the publication of our article (Rizzi et al, Genet Sel Evol, 2012, 44:21), it has come to our attention that our text inadvertently includes some statements taken from the introductory section of the following paper by Pääbo et al. without citation:

Pääbo S, Poinar H, Serre D, Jaenicke-Despres V, Hebler J, Rohland N, Kuch M, Krause J, Vigilant L, Hofreiter M: Genetic analyses from ancient DNA. Annu Rev Genet 2004, 38:645–679.

We apologise for this oversight and any inconvenience this may have caused.

Notes

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Institute for Biomedical Technologies, National Research Council
(2)
Department of Evolutionary Biology, Laboratory of Anthropology, Molecular Anthropology/Paleogenetics Unit, University of Florence

References

  1. Rizzi E, Lari M, Gigli E, De Bellis G, Caramelli D: Ancient DNA studies: new perspectives on old samples. Genet Sel Evol. 2012, 44: 21-10.1186/1297-9686-44-21.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Pääbo S, Poinar H, Serre D, Jaenicke-Despres V, Hebler J, Rohland N, Kuch M, Krause J, Vigilant L, Hofreiter M: Genetic analyses from ancient DNA. Annu Rev Genet. 2004, 38: 645-679. 10.1146/annurev.genet.37.110801.143214.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Rizzi et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement