Jue Gui1,2
Md Abul Kalam Azad1Wenchao Lin1,3Chengwen Meng1,2
Xin Hu2Yadong Cui2Wei Lan2
Jianhua He3
Xiangfeng Kong1,2,3*- 1Key Laboratory of Agro-ecological Processes in Subtropical Region, Hunan Provincial Key Laboratory of Animal Nutrition Physiology and Metabolic Processes, Institute of Subtropical Agriculture, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Changsha, Hunan, China
- 2School of Biology and Food Engineering, Fuyang Normal University, Fuyang, Anhui, China
- 3College of Animal Science and Technology, Hunan Agricultural University, Changsha, Hunan, China
by Gui, J., Azad, M. A. K., Lin, W., Meng, C., Hu, X., Cui, Y., Lan, W., He, J., and Kong, X. (2023). Front. Microbiol. 14:1185806. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1185806
In the published article, there was an error in the legend for Table 1 as published. In our study, due to an error, “The premix provided the following per kg of diets” should be revised to “The ingredients provided per kilogram of premix,” and “vitamin K, 3.18 g” should be revised to “vitamin K3, 0.18 g.” The corrected legend appears below.
aThe ingredients provided per kilogram of premix: vitamin A, 140,000 IU; vitamin D3, 50,000 IU; vitamin E, 480 mg; vitamin K3, 0.18 g; vitamin B1, 63 mg; vitamin B2, 200 mg; vitamin B6, 140 mg; vitamin B12, 0.7 mg; nicotinic acid, 1000 mg; D-pantothenic acid, 500 mg; folic acid, 50 mg; D-biotin, 5.0 mg; choline chloride, 900 mg; Fe, 2.0 g; Cu, 0.3 g; Mn, 1.8 g; Zn, 2.0 g; I, 70 mg; Se, 9 mg; and phytase, 3000 IU.
bCrude protein and ether extract were measured values, while the others were calculated values.
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.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Keywords: Chinese herb, intestinal barrier function, microbiota, ultrafine powder, Xinyang black-feather hens
Citation: Gui J, Azad MAK, Lin W, Meng C, Hu X, Cui Y, Lan W, He J and Kong X (2025) Correction: Dietary supplementation with Chinese herb ultrafine powder improves intestinal morphology and physical barrier function by altering jejunal microbiota in laying hens. Front. Microbiol. 16:1628339. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2025.1628339
Received: 14 May 2025; Accepted: 21 May 2025;
Published: 09 June 2025.
Edited and reviewed by: Jiajia Ni, Guangzhou National Laboratory, China
Copyright © 2025 Gui, Azad, Lin, Meng, Hu, Cui, Lan, He and Kong. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Xiangfeng Kong, bm5reGZAaXNhLmFjLmNu