CORRECTION article

Front. Pharmacol., 25 April 2022

Sec. Ethnopharmacology

Volume 13 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2022.897243

Corrigendum: Bioassay-Guided Interpretation of Antimicrobial Compounds in Kumu, a TCM Preparation From Picrasma quassioides’ Stem via UHPLC-Orbitrap-Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer Combined With Fragmentation and Retention Time Calculation

  • HH

    Haibo Hu 1,2*

  • CH

    Changling Hu 3

  • JP

    Jinnian Peng 2

  • AK

    Alokesh Kumar Ghosh 1

  • AK

    Ajmal Khan 1

  • DS

    Dan Sun 1,4

  • WL

    Walter Luyten 1*

  • 1. Department of Biology, Animal Physiology and Neurobiology Section, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

  • 2. National Engineering Research Center for Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine—Hakka Medical Resources Branch, School of Pharmacy, Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China

  • 3. Laboratory for Functional Foods and Human Health, Center for Excellence in Postharvest Technologies, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, North Carolina Research Campus, Kannapolis, NC, United States

  • 4. College of Life Sciences, NanKai University, Tianjin, China

This article is a correction to:

  1. Bioassay-Guided Interpretation of Antimicrobial Compounds in Kumu, a TCM Preparation From Picrasma quassioides’ Stem via UHPLC-Orbitrap-Ion Trap Mass Spectrometry Combined With Fragmentation and Retention Time Calculation

    1. Read original article

A Corrigendum on Bioassay-Guided Interpretation of Antimicrobial Compounds in Kumu, a TCM Preparation From Picrasma quassioides’ Stem via UHPLC-Orbitrap-Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer Combined With Fragmentation and Retention Time Calculation by Hu, H., Hu, C., Peng, J., Ghosh, A. K., Khan, A., Sun, D. and Luyten, W. (2021). Front. Pharmacol. 12:761751. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.761751

In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 3 as published. The IC50, and MBC calculations of positive controls were unintentionally incorrect when generated by software Graphpad, and may make people confused about their high IC50 values in the original manuscript. Hence, the tests of these compounds were repeated twice again to confirm these results. The corrected Table 3 appears below.

TABLE 3

MicrobialsMethylnigakinone (2)Nigakinone (10)β-Carboline-1-carboxylic acid (25)Positive controla
IC50MBCIC50MBCIC50MBCIC50MBC
S. aureus205.70>50055.35>12547.70>1250.28>125
S. epidermidisNTNT69.18>12550.88>1250.49125
M. luteus137.10>25087.29>25033.99642.63>64
L. innocuaNTNT35.04>250117.80>1250.59>125
E. faecalis109.00>50050.07>12570.66>1259.44b125b
B. cereus102.40>25038.75>25030.48>1250.02>125
E. coliNTNTNTNT19.17>1250.02<3.91
P. aeruginosaNTNTNTNTNTNT0.027.81
S. sonneiNTNTNTNT14.81>1250.0231.25
S. flexneri194.80>25029.99>2503.961250.02<3.91
A. baumanniiNTNTNTNT30.28>1250.1715.62
E. aerogenesNTNTNTNT93.65>1250.04>125
B. diminutaNTNT10.46>644.50642.26>64
A. hydrophilaNTNT68.64>6410.0364<0.010.02
S. enterica subsp. entericaNTNT490.12>50019.34>640.012.00
C. parapsilosis236.00>500201.50>500NTNT0.13c12.56c
C.albicans356.90>500493.80>500NTNT0.01c12.56c
C. auris32.82>12531.91>125NTNT0.10c>50c
C. glabrataNTNTNTNTNTNT0.12c>12.56c
S. cerevisiaeNTNTNTNTNTNT0.44c>50c

Antimicrobial activity (μg/ml) of three β-carbolines.

a

Positive control: Ciprofloxacin.

b

Chloramphenicol.

c

Miconazole.

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.

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

Picrasma quassioides, kumu, beta-carboline, orbitrap elite, MS fragmenter, fragmentation prediction

Citation

Hu H, Hu C, Peng J, Ghosh AK, Khan A, Sun D and Luyten W (2022) Corrigendum: Bioassay-Guided Interpretation of Antimicrobial Compounds in Kumu, a TCM Preparation From Picrasma quassioides’ Stem via UHPLC-Orbitrap-Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer Combined With Fragmentation and Retention Time Calculation. Front. Pharmacol. 13:897243. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.897243

Received

15 March 2022

Accepted

29 March 2022

Published

25 April 2022

Volume

13 - 2022

Edited and reviewed by

Mukhlesur Rahman, University of East London, United Kingdom

Updates

Copyright

© 2022 Hu, Hu, Peng, Ghosh, Khan, Sun and Luyten.

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: Haibo Hu, ; Walter Luyten,

This article was submitted to Ethnopharmacology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology

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.

Outline

Cite article

Copy to clipboard


Export citation file


Share article

Share on WeChat

Scan with WeChat to share this article

Article metrics