Correction: Design considerations for photoinitiator selection in cell-laden gelatin methacryloyl hydrogels

Correction for 'Design considerations for photoinitiator selection in cell-laden gelatin methacryloyl hydrogels' by Elvan Dogan et al., Biomater. Sci., 2025, https://doi.org/10.1039/d5bm00550g. The authors regret that there were errors in the units in the sentences in lines 40–48 in left column on page 3, lines 42–45 in the right column on page 3, lines 41–44 in the right column on page 4, lines 12–19 in the right column on page 6 and lines 3–15 in the right column on page 8 of the original article. These sentences should read as follows: "2.2 GelMA synthesis and precursor preparation" – To prepare 5% (w/v) GelMA with different concentrations of Eosin Y (Sigma Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA; CAS: 17372-87-1), the following Eosin Y concentrations were used: 0.05 mM (low), 0.075 mM, 0.1 mM (medium), 0.25 mM, and 0.5 mM (high). Triethanolamine (TEOA) was added to each solution at a final concentration of 1 mM, and N-vinylpyrrolidone (NVP) was included at a concentration of 95 mM to enhance the polymerization process. "2.5 Swelling test" – The samples were then freeze-dried, and their dry mass (W_d) was measured. Next, the hydrogels were rehydrated with 2 ml of DPBS buffer at 37 °C, and the swollen weights (W_s) were recorded up to 6 hours. "3.1: I2959-crosslinked GelMA" – Hydrogels crosslinked with higher concentrations of I2959 showed a decreased swelling ratio compared to those with lower concentrations (0.3% and 0.5% w/v) at 6 hours. "3.2: Eosin Y-crosslinked GelMA" – The compressive modulus of the hydrogels increased significantly with increasing Eosin Y concentration from 0.05 to 0.1 mM followed by a sharp decrease at 0.25 and 0.5 mM Eosin Y concentrations. Hydrogels crosslinked with 0.1 mM Eosin Y exhibited the highest compressive modulus, indicating presence of an optimal PI concentration to maximize the hydrogel elastic modulus. "3.3: Eosin Y-crosslinked GelMA" – The results demonstrate a concentration-dependent reduction in cell viability, with higher concentrations of Eosin Y (0.25 and 0.5 mM) leading to more pronounced cell death. The observed cytotoxicity at higher concentrations could be attributed to the higher degree of crosslinking, which might impede nutrient and waste diffusion, adversely affecting cell survival. A slight increase in ROS intensity was observed with increasing Eosin Y concentration from 0.05 to 0.1 mM while increasing the Eosin concentration above 0.1 mM retained ROS level at a constant amount, indicating that higher Eosin Y concentrations may contribute to fixed oxidative stress for the cells (Fig. 4C). The authors regret labelling error in Fig. 2, 3, 4, S1, S2 and S5 in the original manuscript. The correct versions of Fig. 2, 3, 4, S1, S2 and S5 is as shown below.