Corrigendum: Phytoplasmas—The “Crouching Tiger” Threat of Australian Plant Pathology

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00599.].

Issue 2: Complex taxonomic nomenclature, paragraphs 2 and 3 Second, as molecular methods became available, workers were able to group and phenetically classify phytoplasmas using restricted fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis of a PCR amplified portion of the 16S rRNA gene with a defined set of restriction enzymes (Lee et al., 1998). The RFLP profiles generated for different phytoplasmas are generally consistent with sequence-based phylogenetic analyses of the 16S rRNA gene, particularly in the co-identification and grouping of related strains. The 33 16Sr groups currently defined each have a similarity of less  Gibb et al., 1995;Davis et al., 1997b;Gowanlock et al., 1998;De La Rue et al., 1999;Tran-Nguyen et al., 2000 Gibb et al., 1995*;Liu et al., 1996;Davis et al., 1997b;Schneider and Gibb, 1997*;De La Rue et al., 1999Padovan and Gibb, 2001;Wilson et al., 2001;Davis et al., 2003;Streten and Gibb, 2006;Tairo et al., 2006;Tran-Nguyen et al., 2012 XI-B Queensland Davis et al., 2003;Zhao and Davis, 2016 XXXIII Allocasuarina yellows

Galactia tenuiflora
Northern Territory Schneider et al., 1999;Padovan and Gibb, 2001 Sorghum bunchy shoot Western Australia Bayliss et al., 2005 *Denotes reference for vector data. + Location data are from the listed references but not every plant species was diseased in every location. a A new taxon, Ca. Phytoplasma australasia was proposed (White et al., 1998) to include the phytoplasma associated with papaya yellow crinkle and papaya mosaic (as well as tomato big bud) but later revised to "Ca. australasiae" (to include the papaya-associated phytoplasmas but not TBB; Firrao et al., 2005). b Davis and Sinclair (1998) moved the AGY phytoplasma from the 16SrI group into the stolbur group (16SrXII) and designated it subgroup B.

Sorghum stipoideum
c Constable et al. (2003) reported a close relationship to 16Sr I. Zhao and Davis (2016) subsequently placed this into a new group: 16SrXXIII. d Zhao and Davis (2016) placed this into this new group and potentially a new "Ca. Phytoplasma" species. e This phytoplasma has not been found in economically important field crops.
f Tentative data only for a phytoplasma etiology. g RFLP patterns showed high similarity to "Candidatus Phytoplasma australiense." Frontiers in Plant Science | www.frontiersin.org than 85% compared with any representative phytoplasma from within an established 16Sr group (Zhao and Davis, 2016). Table 1 summarizes available information on the 16Sr groups reported in Australian studies. Of the 33 16Sr groups reported internationally, only groups II, XI, XII, XXIII, XXV, and XXXIII have been recorded in Australia and this highlights the need for ongoing biosecurity measures to prevent the introduction of additional pathogen groups. Third, phytoplasmas are classified in the provisional genus "Candidatus Phytoplasma" (IRPCM, 2004). To date, there are 42 formally described species and ten potentially novel phytoplasma species (Davis et al., 2015). This number exceeds the current number of 16s rRNA groups because some of these groups contain several "Candidatus Phytoplasma" species. At least 100 subgroups are known (Dickinson and Hodgetts, 2013). According to Phytoplasma/Spiroplasma Working Team-Phytoplasma Taxonomy Group, a novel "Ca. Phytoplasma" species description should refer to a single, unique 16S rRNA gene sequence (>1,200 bp), and a strain can be recognized as a novel "Ca. Phytoplasma" species if its 16S rRNA gene sequence has <97.5% similarity to that of any previously described "Ca. Phytoplasma" species (Duduk and Bertaccini, 2011). Additional biological characters such as antibody specificity, host range and vector transmission specificity as well as genetic markers can also be used in an integrative taxonomy approach for species differentiation. Of the 42 recognized "Ca. Phytoplasma" species, only Ca. Phytoplasma aurantifolia, Ca. Phytoplasma australasiae and Ca. Phytoplasma australiense are reported in Australia ( Table 1) but uncertainty exists because many papers appear without Ca. Phytoplasma names which are used consistently only in the case of the GenBank database.
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.