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.
Fig. 1.
The quality of DNA extracted from wound tissue debridement specimen No. 1 using six DNA extraction methods
Fig. 3.
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
The corrected figures are given below.
Footnotes
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Reference
- Dilhari A, Sampath A, Gunasekara C, Fernando N, Weerasekara D, Sissons C, McBain A, Weerasekera M. 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. 2017;7:179. doi: 10.1186/s13568-017-0477-z. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]