Correction to: A CCR5+ memory subset within HIV-1-infected primary resting CD4+ T cells is permissive for replication-competent, latently infected viruses in vitro.

After publication of the original article [1], the authors became aware of a miscalculation in the original Fig. 2d.

Correction to: BMC Res Notes (2019) 12:242 10.1186/s13104-019-4281-5

After publication of the original article [1], the authors became aware of a miscalculation in the original Fig. 2d.should be calculated as:

The corrected Fig. 2d is shown in this erratum.

Fig. 2

HIV-1 infection and culture of resting CD4+ T-cell subsets isolated by cell sorting. Subsets of naïve T cells (TN), or CCR5+ or CCR5− memory T cells (TM), were separately infected and cultured. a Schematic of the protocol of HIV-1 infection and culture. b Representative flow-cytometry profiles of cells from Donor #1 at day 3 and day 5 post-infection (resting or activated), separated according to reporter expression indicating the presence of X4 or R5 HIV-1, with the percentage of each subset indicated (left panels). The intensity of fluorescence for each viral reporter in each cell subset [except for the very low percentage of DsRed+ cells (R5+) in TN cells] is shown in the right-hand panels. c Percentages of HIV-1+ cells in each CD4+ T-cell subset in three donors. d Percentage increases in frequencies of HIV-1+ cells following activation were estimated by comparing percentages of HIV-1+ cells in the activation condition with those in the resting condition at day 5 post-infection. Significant differences (*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01) were determined by repeated-measures one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test. In c and d, HIV-1+ cells include the corresponding reporter (either EGFP or DsRed) single-positive cells and double-positive cells

Although the statistical significances have been altered, the hierarchical mode between cell-subset groups remains the same. It is still shown that numbers of X4 HIV-1+ cells increased consistently in the CCR5+ TM subset of all three donors tested. Therefore, the correction does not change the scientific conclusion.