Correction to: Communications Chemistry https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-019-0185-5, published online 19 July 2019.

The previously published version of this Article contained a consequential error in the fourth sentence of the “Discussion”, which incorrectly read ‘The use of the azF-SCO crosslink proved important as classical disulfide crosslinking did improve protein function’. The correct version states ‘The use of the azF-SCO crosslink proved important as classical disulfide crosslinking did not improve protein function’—the word ‘not’ has been added as the 14th word. This has been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.