Corrigendum

The ISME Journal (2014) 8, 1551–1552; doi:10.1038/ismej.2014.66

Classification and quantification of bacteriophage taxa in human gut metagenomes

Alison S Waller, Takuji Yamada, David M Kristensen, Jens Roat Kultima, Shinichi Sunagawa, Eugene V Koonin and Peer Bork

Correction to: The ISME Journal (2014) 8, 1548–1550; doi:10.1038/ismej.2014.30; published online 13 March 2014

Since the publication of this article, the authors have identified an error in Figure 1a, namely that the columns were not clustered and the column labels were incorrect, in that 252.Gut.PFPR and 61.Gut.Virome were reversed.

Figure 1.
Figure 1 - Unfortunately we are unable to provide accessible alternative text for this. If you require assistance to access this image, please contact help@nature.com or the author

Taxonomic classification and quantification of phages in the human gut and the Oceans. (a) Relative rank of phage taxa in the human gut and the Ocean. The abundance of each taxon was used to determine its rank, and the relative rank is then the rank divided by the maximum rank in that sample set. Thereby, a relative rank of 1 is the most abundant taxon in that sample. Each column represents one of the four different sample sets: GOS (82 samples from the Global Ocean Sampling Expedition), 252.Gut.PFPR (only the subset of prophage-encoded genes in 252 gut metagenome samples), 61.Gut.Virome (all of the genes with 61 samples from three published studies of virus-enriched gut metagenomes), 252.Gut.total (all of the genes contained within 252 gut metagenome samples). The columns are clustered by similarity, as illustrated by the dendrogram below the columns. (b) Abundance of each phage taxon within the 252 human gut samples (total metagenomic genes). These abundances were derived by dividing the length-normalized base coverages by the total gene abundance in each sample, and multiplied by 109 to yield the abundance per Gbp. For those taxa for which marker genes are not quantitative (see Materials and methods), the recall is indicated in brackets.

Full figure and legend (302K)

The correct figure is shown here.

The error has now been rectified, and the correct article appears in this issue. The html and online pdf versions have also been rectified, and now carry the correct paper.

The Authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.