Correction to: Journal of Bone and Mineral Metabolism (2022) 40:561–570 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00774-022-01320-y

In the original publication of the article, supplementary videos were not included and provided in this version.

In addition, in Figure 2E-G, numbers in the distribution under the right graph were mistyped. The correct Fig. 2E-G is provided below,

figure a

A and B Representative fuorescence images for the control and Pfn1-cKO osteoclasts in comparison. Scale bar: 100 μm. C and D Only the traced lines for E and F are shown. E The relative length of class-II curve per whole cell perimeter (%-PB) was compared between the control and Pfn1-cKO osteoclasts. Averaged values per microscopic feld was compared using Student’s t test (p<0.005, n=8). Total numbers of analyzed cells were 156 and 87 for WT and Pfn1-cKO, respectively. All values are presented as means±standard deviations (SDs). Statistical analysis was performed using the Student’s t test (*p<0.05, **p<0.01). F Frequency of the size distribution of concaved arches (Class-I curve length) were compared between the WT and Pfn1-cKO osteoclasts. Curves were divided into three groups according to their length (0–15, 15–30, and>30 pixel, where 1 pixel corresponds to 1.33 μm). Exact numbers of the curves were 917 for WT, and 303 for Pfn1-cKO. G Frequency of the size distribution of protrusive and tail-like borders (ClassII and III curve length) were compared between the WT and Pfn1-cKO osteoclasts. Curves were divided into three groups according to their length (0–50, 50–100, 100–150, and >150 pixel, where 1 pixel corresponds to 1.33 μm). Exact numbers of the curves were 572 and 343 for WT, and 228 and 97 for Pfn1-cKO respectively

Further, under the section “Live-cell imaging”, the following sentence “RANKL for 16 h and 32 min (for Fig. 2 and S3) or 5 h and 30 min (for Fig. 3, S4, and S5), respectively” was published incorrectly. The correct sentence should read as follows, “RANKL for 5 h and 30 min (for Fig. 3 and S3) or 16 h and 32 min (for Fig. 4, S4, and S5), respectively”.

Finally, the last sentence in the caption of Figure 4 was published incorrectly. The correct sentence should read as follows, “The statistical examination was performed using 2-way ANOVA”.