In the above article [Kouzuki H, Suzuki H, Stieger B, Meier PJ, and Sugiyama Y (2000) J Pharmacol Exp Ther 292:505-511] on page 507 in the last sentence of the first paragraph under Discussion, the authors stated that "the results of the present study are in good agreement with the previous reports, although we have no good reason to account for the discrepancy in the inhibitory nature of deoxycholate between the previous study [Platte HD, Honscha W, Schuh K, and Petzinger E (1996) Eur J Cell Biol 70:54-60] and the present one (Figs. 1 and 3)." This statement, however, is not justified because deoxycholate was not used by Platte et al. (1996). In their inhibition studies, Platte et al. (1996) found the ranking of bile acids is taurochenodeoxycholate > chenodeoxycholate > ursodeoxycholate  cholate, which is absolutely identical to the results in Figs. 1 and 3. Therefore, any discrepancy to this issue does not exist.

The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused by this error.