TY - JOUR
T1 - Author Correction
T2 - Genome evolution and the emergence of pathogenicity in avian Escherichia coli (Nature Communications, (2021), 12, 1, (765), 10.1038/s41467-021-20988-w)
AU - Mageiros, Leonardos
AU - Méric, Guillaume
AU - Bayliss, Sion C.
AU - Pensar, Johan
AU - Pascoe, Ben
AU - Mourkas, Evangelos
AU - Calland, Jessica K.
AU - Yahara, Koji
AU - Murray, Susan
AU - Wilkinson, Thomas S.
AU - Williams, Lisa K.
AU - Hitchings, Matthew D.
AU - Porter, Jonathan
AU - Kemmett, Kirsty
AU - Feil, Edward J.
AU - Jolley, Keith A.
AU - Williams, Nicola J.
AU - Corander, Jukka
AU - Sheppard, Samuel K.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2021, The Author(s).
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/12
Y1 - 2021/12
N2 - The original version of this Article contained errors related to phylogroup attribution of lineages ST-117, ST-657, ST-1163, ST-4673, ST-23, ST-88 and ST-2230. The ‘Results’ originally incorrectly read ‘Poultry isolates from our dataset (Supplementary Data 1) clustered within six out of the eight known E. coli phylogroups (A, B1, B2, D, E, F)43, and were absent in phylogroups C and G44,45’. The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘Poultry isolates from our dataset (Supplementary Data 1) clustered within the eight known E. coli phylogroups (A, B1, B2, C, D, E, F and G)43-45’. The ‘Results’ omitted to mention that lineage ST-117 belongs to phylogroup G in the sentence: ‘In a second analysis, we tested the ability of the model trained on data from phylogroup A, B1 and B2 isolates, to predict infection status (healthy carriage vs. disease) in the emergent ST-117 lineage’. The correct version replaces this text with ‘In a second analysis, we tested the ability of the model trained on data from phylogroup A, B1 and B2 isolates, to predict infection status (healthy carriage vs. disease) in the emergent ST-117 lineage (phylogroup G)’. The ‘Discussion’ originally incorrectly read ‘In fact, disease isolates were distributed across the phylogeny within all six previously described phylogroups and the ST-117 complex lineage’. The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘In fact, disease isolates were distributed across the phylogeny within all eight previously described phylogroups’. The original versions of Figs. 1 and 3 omitted to mention that lineage ST-117 belongs to phylogroup G. The original version of Fig. 3a omitted labels for phylogroups C and G and incorrectly labelled isolates from phylogroup C as belonging to phylogroup B1. All the errors have been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article. In addition, the original version of the Supplementary Information associated with this Article included an incorrect Supplementary Data 1 file, in which phylogroup attribution of some lineages was omitted or incorrect. The HTML has been updated to include a corrected version of Supplementary Data 1, in which lineages ST-117, ST-657, ST-1163 and ST-4674 are correctly classified within phylogroup G and lineages ST-23, ST-88 and ST-2230 are correctly classified within phylogroup C. The correct version of Supplementary Data 1 can be found as Supplementary Information associated with this Correction.
AB - The original version of this Article contained errors related to phylogroup attribution of lineages ST-117, ST-657, ST-1163, ST-4673, ST-23, ST-88 and ST-2230. The ‘Results’ originally incorrectly read ‘Poultry isolates from our dataset (Supplementary Data 1) clustered within six out of the eight known E. coli phylogroups (A, B1, B2, D, E, F)43, and were absent in phylogroups C and G44,45’. The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘Poultry isolates from our dataset (Supplementary Data 1) clustered within the eight known E. coli phylogroups (A, B1, B2, C, D, E, F and G)43-45’. The ‘Results’ omitted to mention that lineage ST-117 belongs to phylogroup G in the sentence: ‘In a second analysis, we tested the ability of the model trained on data from phylogroup A, B1 and B2 isolates, to predict infection status (healthy carriage vs. disease) in the emergent ST-117 lineage’. The correct version replaces this text with ‘In a second analysis, we tested the ability of the model trained on data from phylogroup A, B1 and B2 isolates, to predict infection status (healthy carriage vs. disease) in the emergent ST-117 lineage (phylogroup G)’. The ‘Discussion’ originally incorrectly read ‘In fact, disease isolates were distributed across the phylogeny within all six previously described phylogroups and the ST-117 complex lineage’. The correct version replaces this sentence with ‘In fact, disease isolates were distributed across the phylogeny within all eight previously described phylogroups’. The original versions of Figs. 1 and 3 omitted to mention that lineage ST-117 belongs to phylogroup G. The original version of Fig. 3a omitted labels for phylogroups C and G and incorrectly labelled isolates from phylogroup C as belonging to phylogroup B1. All the errors have been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article. In addition, the original version of the Supplementary Information associated with this Article included an incorrect Supplementary Data 1 file, in which phylogroup attribution of some lineages was omitted or incorrect. The HTML has been updated to include a corrected version of Supplementary Data 1, in which lineages ST-117, ST-657, ST-1163 and ST-4674 are correctly classified within phylogroup G and lineages ST-23, ST-88 and ST-2230 are correctly classified within phylogroup C. The correct version of Supplementary Data 1 can be found as Supplementary Information associated with this Correction.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102812861&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/s41467-021-22238-5
DO - 10.1038/s41467-021-22238-5
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 33753730
AN - SCOPUS:85102812861
SN - 2041-1723
VL - 12
JO - Nature Communications
JF - Nature Communications
IS - 1
M1 - 1934
ER -