A correction was made to the following sentence in Section 6.1, “Translation challenges in clinical practice,” due to factual inaccuracies concerning the cited study:
“For instance, a trial by Schindler et al. (2024) demonstrated that a one-size-fits-all probiotic regimen was effective in only 30% of DFU patients, underscoring the importance of tailoring treatments to individual microbiome profiles.”
The Schindler et al. (2024) study tested a genetically modified lactic acid bacterium producing human therapeutic proteins (a gene therapy product), not a probiotic regimen. The authors incorrectly label it as a “probiotic.” The claim of “30% efficacy” ignores the dose-dependent outcomes reported in the original study: Cohort 4 (high dose) achieved 60% wound closure by end-of-treatment and 83.3% at 6 months. Lower efficacy in Cohorts 1–3 was due to insufficient dosing, not lack of personalization. The Schindler study did not investigate microbiome profiles or personalized treatments. The authors erroneously used it to argue for microbiota-based personalization, which misrepresents the study's focus on gene therapy. The cited study explores gene therapy for wound healing, not probiotic efficacy or microbiome modulation. Citing it in the context of microbiota challenges is scientifically inappropriate.
The corrected text appears below:
“Recent clinical trials have highlighted the potential of innovative therapeutic approaches. For example, the study by Schindler et al. (2024) investigated a novel gene therapy approach using a genetically modified lactic acid bacterium, demonstrated dose-dependent efficacy, with 60% of patients in Cohort 4 achieving complete wound closure by end-of-treatment, and 83.3% within six months.”
The original version of this article has been updated.
Statements
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.
Summary
Keywords
skin microbiota, diabetic foot ulcers, Staphylococcus, Pseudomonas, microorganisms
Citation
Lou J, Xiang Z, Zhu X, Li J, Jin G, Cui S, Huang N, Le X, Fan Y and Sun Q (2025) Correction: Skin microbiota and diabetic foot ulcers. Front. Microbiol. 16:1662172. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2025.1662172
Received
08 July 2025
Accepted
22 July 2025
Published
07 August 2025
Volume
16 - 2025
Edited and reviewed by
Megan L. Falsetta, University of Rochester, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2025 Lou, Xiang, Zhu, Li, Jin, Cui, Huang, Le, Fan and Sun.
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: Qionghui Sun tps20188@126.comYoufen Fan 13906683613@163.comXin Le 13094991@qq.com
Disclaimer
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.