Corrigendum: Phylogenomics and Comparative Genomic Studies Robustly Support Division of the Genus Mycobacterium into an Emended Genus Mycobacterium and Four Novel Genera.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00067.].

In the original article, there was an error. Based on the branching position of Mycobacterium vulneris (van Ingen et al., 2009) in different phylogenomic trees and on multiple identified molecular signatures that this species shared with a clade of rapid growing mycobacteria, we proposed a reclassification of M. vulneris, into a new genus, Mycolicibacterium, corresponding to a clade of rapid-growing mycobacteria. However, it was noted in our article that the branching of M. vulneris, which is a slow-growing species with rapid-growing mycobacteria, was anomalous.

In a Frontiers commentary, Tortoli (2018) indicated that the genome sequence of M. vulneris, originally available in the NCBI genome database (accession CCBG00000000; Croce et al., 2014), was mislabeled and very likely corresponded to Mycobacterium porcinum (a rapid grower). Tortoli (2018) also reported the sequencing of the type strain of M. vulneris, DSM 45247T and this genome sequence (accession NCXM01000000) showed the branching of M. vulneris within the slow-growing group of mycobacteria, belonging to the genus Mycobacterium.

Our own analysis with this new genome sequence also confirms the branching of M. vulneris within the delimited genus Mycobacterium, encompassing different slow-growing mycobacteria. As a result, the transfer of M. vulneris into the genus Mycolicibacterium as proposed in Table 11 of our article was incorrect as a direct result of the mislabeling of the available genome sequence for this species. To correct this error, we propose that the species Mycolicibacterium vulneris (Gupta et al., 2018) should be reinstated to its previous basonym Mycobacterium vulneris (van Ingen et al., 2009) and as part of the genus Mycobacterium (Gupta et al., 2018).

The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way.