Correction: Development and partial validation of an RT-qPCR assay for the rapid detection of spring viremia of carp virus (SVCV)

Affiliations 1 and 2 were erroneously ordered in the opposite manner. Accordingly, the correct author and affiliation order appear below:

Peng Zhu^{1, 2, 3, †} Jie Sun^1†, Lishan Liao¹, Zhiheng Zuo⁴, Annabel Rice⁵, Shishun Gui³, Jiang Wu¹, Yumin Zhu¹, Lei Zhang¹, Hongwei Liu⁶, David Stone^5* and Hong Liu^1*

¹Animal and Plant Inspection and Quarantine Technology Centre, Shenzhen Customs, Shenzhen, China

²College of Life Sciences and Oceanography, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China

³College of Fisheries and Life Sciences, Shanghai Ocean University, Shanghai, China

⁴College of Life Science and Technology, Jinan University, Guangzhou, China

⁵Center for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, Weymouth, United Kingdom

⁶Comprehensive Technical Service Center of Dandong Customs, Dandong, Liaoning, China

There was a mistake in content in Figure captions 3 and 5 as published. The captions were erroneously cut short.

Figure 3. Analytical specificity of the RT–qPCR Assay for SVCV.

Figure 5. Positive detection rates of RT-qPCR in different tissues (Ct ≤ 37 Considered Positive).

The corrected captions appear below.

Figure 3. Analytical specificity of the SVCV RT–qPCR assay. Samples 1–17 represent nine viruses: MSRV, LMBV, IPNV, IHNV, GCHV, VHSV, GFHNV, HRV, and KHV; as well as muscle tissue samples from eight fish species: grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), crucian carp (Carassius carassius), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), silver carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix), bighead carp (Aristichthys nobilis), black carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus), zebrafish (Danio rerio), and mandarin fish (Siniperca chuatsi).

Figure 5. Positive detection rates of RT-qPCR in different tissues. Each tissue type (gill, spleen, and kidney) shows the percentage of samples falling within specific Ct value ranges: < 25, 25–30, 30–37, and >37. Individual sample Ct values are indicated by black crosses ( × ). Samples with Ct ≤ 37 were considered positive. The red line at Ct = 37 represents the positivity threshold.

There was a mistake in Table 8 as published. In the published version, the value in the “Number” column for the field samples was left blank. This blank entry has been corrected to 15. The corrected table appears below.

Table 8.

Evaluation of diagnostic sensitivity (DSe) and specificity (DSp) of the assay based on RT-qPCR.

Sample type	Genotype	Number	Virus isolation	Nested RT-PCR	RT-qPCR	DSe	DSp
Cell-culture isolate	SVCVa	256	(+)256/(–)0	(+)256/(–)0	(+)256/(–)0	100%	100%
	SVCVb	2	(+)2/(–)0	(+)2/(–)0	(+)2/(–)0
	SVCVc	3	(+)3/(–)0	(+)3/(–)0	(+)3/(–)0
	SVCVd	3	(+)3/(–)0	(+)3/(–)0	(+)3/(–)0
Experimental infection	20040741	63	(+)63/(–)0	(+)63/(–)0	(+)63/(–)0	96.6%	100%
	10-3	63	(+)63/(–)0	(+)63/(–)0	(+)63/(–)0
	20100910	63	(+)63/(–)0	(+)63/(–)0	(+)56/(–)7
Field samples	None	15	(+)0/(–)15	(+)0/(–)15	(+)0/(–)15

The original version of this article has been updated.