A central reference is missing in this article.
The missing reference is: G. Kempermann, “Adult neurogenesis”, Oxford University Press, 2006.
Actually, the sentences directly extracted from this book, the origin of which should have been outlined by quotation marks, are the following:
- - On p. 511 of the article, the sentence: “Our general hypothesis underlying this review is that adult neurogenesis… and that plasticity can be taken as continued development” (p. 19 of the book).
- - On p. 512, the sentences: “Neurogenic implies to things… to premature”, “There is one ultimate test… certain unusual conditions”, “To sum up, neurogenic regions are defined by…”, and “At the core of the concept of neurogenic permissiveness… the so-called stem cell niche” (pp. 226–227 of the book).
- - On p. 513 of the article: “Adult neurogenesis is scientifically interesting… intend to do in (stem-) cell-based therapy for the brain: make new neurons” (p. 11 of the book).
- - On p. 513 (bottom), the following questions: “Is adult neurogenesis an atavism… the existing network?” and on p. 514 (top) “How could they possibly… a precursor cell can understand?” (p. 12 of the book).
This correction is published with the apologies of the corresponding author.