Correction: Helicobacter pylori bab Paralog Distribution and Association with cagA, vacA, and homA/B Genotypes in American and South Korean Clinical Isolates

Upon review of the published manuscript, four typographical errors in the underlying dataset were identified.

Two errors occurred in the labeling of the disease status of the AH clinical isolates in S1 Table; J262 was isolated from a patient with CA and J300 was isolated from a patient with BE. Due to the mislabeled disease states, a sentence within the “Sample Population” sub-header in the “Results” section should be amended to read as follows: Of these clinical isolates, 8.8% were from patients with cancer/pre-malignant lesions (of those, 2.5% were gastric carcinoma and 6.3% were Barrett's Esophagus), 43.7% were from patients with peptic ulcer disease (of those 31.2% were duodenal ulcers and 12.5% were gastric ulcers), 32.5% were from patients with gastritis, and 15.0% were from patients with esophagitis.

Next, the cagA EPIYA type of B130A should be reported as AB instead of ABCC in S1 Table, this lead to a miscoding for strain B130A listed in S3 Table.

Finally, the bab genotype for B130A is babA/babB/babAB but locus C was miscoded in S3 Table; therefore, S3 Table has been updated to reflect babAB at locus C.

The authors have re-run all statistical analyses. P-values that need to be adjusted are indicated in red in the corrected Tables 3 and 4. Despite slight variations to P-values listed in the corrected Tables 3 and 4, all significant associations remain significant and non-significant associations are also unchanged. In addition, the phylogenetic analysis was also re-run to accommodate updates to S3 Table. To account for updates to the analysis programs (figtree and Phylip), the authors ran the correct and uncorrect datasets side-by-side following the same parameters listed in the materials and methods. The results showed very similar distributions for both data sets and the significant findings did not change. Therefore, no changes to figure 4 are needed.

Table 3. Significant two-way comparisons of bab genotype and other factors in both populations^a.

bab genotype comparison	P valueb for distribution within
	KH	AH	Combinedc
babA,B,C or empty at Locus A vs babA,B,C or empty at Locus B	0.1046	0.0028	0.0131
babA,B,C or empty at Locus A vs Full or empty bab at Locus C	0.0027	0.4111	0.4500
babA,B,C or empty at Locus A vs one or two hom loci occupied	0.0167	<0.0001	0.0029
babB ‘IN’ or Other at Locus B vs one or two hom loci occupied	0.0210	1.0000	0.6070
Full or empty bab at Locus C vs one or two hom loci occupied	1.0000	0.0390	0.1750
babA,B,C or empty at Locus A vs homA or homB	0.6390	<0.0001	<0.0001
babA,B,C or empty at Locus B vs homA or homB	0.7340	0.0160	0.0260
babA,B,C or empty at Locus A vs vacA s1 or vacA s2	1.0000	<0.0001	<0.0001
babA,B,C or empty at Locus A vs vacA i1 or vacA i2	0.9999	<0.0001	<0.0001
babA,B,C or empty at Locus A vs vacA m1 or vacA m2	0.9999	<0.0001	<0.0001
babA,B,C or empty at Locus A vs cagA EPIYA-ABD or Other	0.5010	N/A*	<0.0001
babA,B,C or empty at Locus B vs Cancer/Gastric ulcer or Duodenal ulcer/Gastritis	0.0101	0.974#	0.243#
babB or other at Locus B vs Cancer or Gastric ulcer or Duodenal ulcer or Gastritis	0.0012	0.225#	0.137#

^a For simplicity, Table 3 only contains associations for which a statistically significant association was found in at least one grouping; however, an exhaustive analysis was conducted on numerous other permutations of the data.

^b Statistically significant P values are in boldface type.

^c All isolates (n = 160) analyzed as a single group

*No ABD in the AH

^#Also includes a category for Esophagitis/Barrett's Esophagus

Red cells indicate corrected P-values.

Table 4. Three-way comparisons of bab genotype and other factors in both populations.

bab genotype comparison	P valuea for distribution within
	KH	AH	Combinedb
babA, B or C at Locus A vs vacA i1/i2 vs one or two hom loci occupied	N/A	0.097	0.001
babA, B or C at Locus A vs vacA s1/s2 vs one or two hom loci occupied	N/A	0.173	0.002
babA, B or C at Locus A vs vacA m1/m2 vs one or two hom loci occupied	N/A	0.882	0.001
babA, B or C at Locus A vs vacA s1i1m1/other vs one or two hom loci occupied	1.000	N/A#	N/A#
babA, B or C at Locus A vs cagA (AB &Other$/ABCs/ABD) vs vacA m1/m2	N/A	0.972	0.075
babA, B or C at Locus A vs cagA (AB &Other$/ABCs/ABD) vs vacA s1/s2	N/A	0.781	0.666
babA, B or C at Locus A vs cagA (AB &Other$/ABCs/ABD) vs vacA i1/i2	N/A	0.571	0.075
babA, B or C at Locus A vs cagA (Other/ABD) vs vacA s1i1m1/other	1.000	N/A#	N/A#
babA, B or C at Locus A vs cagA (AB &Other$/ABCs/ABD) vs one or two hom loci occupied	0.976	0.997	0.042
babA, B or C at Locus B vs one or two hom loci occupied vs vacA s1/s2	N/A*	0.823	0.061

^a Statistically significant P values are in boldface type.

^b All isolates (n = 160) analyzed as a single group.

^#These comparisons were only done in KH; for AH and combined we looked at i, s, and m regions of vacA separately, which wasn’t feasible with KH since was overwhelmingly s1/i1/m1.

*All KH strains are vacA s1.

^$AB&Other refers to any cagA EPIYA motif that is not ABC_(1–4), or ABD.

Red cells indicate corrected P-values.

Please see the correct Tables 3 and 4 below. The corrected S1 and S3 Tables are attached as supporting information files.

Supporting information

S1 Table

A. cagA EPIYA polymorphism, vacA s/i/m polymorphism and homA/B genotype of 80 AH. B. cagA EPIYA polymorphism, vacA s/i/m polymorphism and homA/B genotype of 80 KH.

(XLSX)

S3 Table. Discrete character code for phylogenetic analysis.

(XLSX)