Skip to main content

Correction to: Evaluation of the impact of six different DNA extraction methods for the representation of the microbial community associated with human chronic wound infections using a gel‑based DNA profiling method

Correction to: AMB Expr (2017) 7:179 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-017–0477-z

Following publication of the original article (Dilhari et al. 2017), the authors identified an error in Figs. 1 and 3.

The corrected figures are given below.

Fig. 1
figure1

The quality of DNA extracted from wound tissue debridement specimen No. 1 using six DNA extraction methods

Fig. 3
figure3

A comparison of DGGE profiles of PCR amplified bacterial 16S rRNA gene for the specimen No: 1. DNA was extracted using six different DNA extraction methods using 25 mg of wound tissue debridement specimen no. 1. Bacterial fingerprinting profile is based on 30–55% denaturing gradient. “L” lanes represent the in house bacterial reference panel which includes S. aureus, Acinetobacter spp, Group B Streptococcus spp., E. faecalis, Group A Streptococcus spp. and E. coli from top to bottom respectively. Other lanes show bacterial fingerprinting profile of each extraction method in duplicate (a, b) for the specimen No. 1, collected from a subject with a chronic wound

Reference

  1. Dilhari A, Sampath A, Gunasekara C, Fernando N, Weerasekara D, Sissons C, McBain A, Weerasekera M (2017) Evaluation of the impact of six different DNA extraction methods for the representation of the microbial community associated with human chronic wound infections gel-based DNA profiling method. AMB Expr 7:179

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Manjula Weerasekera.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dilhari, A., Sampath, A., Gunasekara, C. et al. Correction to: Evaluation of the impact of six different DNA extraction methods for the representation of the microbial community associated with human chronic wound infections using a gel‑based DNA profiling method. AMB Expr 10, 209 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13568-020-01145-w

Download citation