| Literature DB >> 30410089 |
Tracey Goldstein1, Simon J Anthony2,3,4, Aiah Gbakima5, Brian H Bird6, James Bangura5, Alexandre Tremeau-Bravard6, Manjunatha N Belaganahalli6, Heather L Wells7, Jasjeet K Dhanota6, Eliza Liang7,8, Michael Grodus7, Rohit K Jangra9, Veronica A DeJesus9, Gorka Lasso10, Brett R Smith6, Amara Jambai11, Brima O Kamara12, Sorie Kamara13, William Bangura14, Corina Monagin6,15, Sagi Shapira10,16, Christine K Johnson6, Karen Saylors15, Edward M Rubin15, Kartik Chandran9, W Ian Lipkin7,17, Jonna A K Mazet6.
Abstract
In the version of this Article originally published, the bat species for 12 individuals were incorrectly identified in Supplementary Table 1 and 2. After resequencing the MT-CytB and MT-CO1 segments and reviewing the data, the authors have corrected the errors for these 12 animals. In the amended version of the Supplementary Information, Supplementary Tables 1 and 2 have been replaced to include the corrected host species information. None of the 12 bats affected were positive for the Bombali virus, and the conclusions of the study are therefore unchanged.Entities:
Year: 2018 PMID： 30410089 DOI： 10.1038/s41564-018-0315-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Nat Microbiol ISSN： 2058-5276 Impact factor: 17.745