Correction: Controlling bacterial biofilm formation by native and methylated lupine 11S globulins

Abstract

Correction on: Enan G, Abdel-Shafi S, El-Nemr M, Shehab W, Osman A, Sitohy M and Sitohy B (2023) Controlling bacterial biofilm formation by native and methylated lupine 11S globulins. Front. Microbiol. 14:1259334. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1259334 ❖ There was a mistake in Figure 5 as published. Incorrect representative SEM panels had inadvertently been incorporated during figure preparation.The corrected Figure 5 appears below: For S. aureus, the untreated control image was acquired at 25 kV, 7,500× magnification with a 1 µm scale bar; the 11S-treated sample (0.5 µg/ml) was imaged at 25 kV, 15,000× with a 1 µm scale bar; and the M11S-treated sample (0.025 µg/ml) was imaged at 25 kV, 7,500× with a 1 µm scale bar.❖ Some references were incorrectly transcribed during manuscript preparation, resulting in citation/reference mismatches within the reference list. These errors occurred during preparation of the manuscript and affected the bibliographic information only.The reference "Yarwood, J. M., Bartels, D. J. The relevant text should now reads : Alternatively, the cationic M11S and 11S could have affected biofilm formation by disrupting the gel formed by the extracellular polymeric substances. This is supported by Li et al. ( 2022), which demonstrated that cationic dextrans and polyethyleneimine (PEI) can disrupt P. aeruginosa biofilms by inducing a gelto-sol phase transition of the biofilm matrix."❖ Although the published Figure 2 accurately represents the underlying experimental data, we respectfully request that the published record be clarified to state that the untreated control growth curves were intentionally used as a common experimental baseline for both publications because both studies originated from the same experimental series, whereas the treatment groups and the scientific objectives differed between the two manuscripts. This clarification does not alter the experimental data, the interpretation of the results, or the conclusions of the article. Rather, it is intended to improve transparency and provide readers with a clearer understanding of the relationship between the two publications.A correction has been made to Results, 3.2.2 Inhibition of liquid bacterial growth."The data in Figure 2, representing the 24-h growth curves of seven pathogenic bacteria subjected to one MIC of 11S and M11S, show general substance-based growth inhibition.In the liquid media, 1.0 MIC of both agents was nearly sufficient to completely prevent the 24-h liquid bacterial growth of all the tested microorganisms. Listeria monocytogenes and K. oxytoca were the most inhibited organisms. The untreated control and 11S growth datasets' curves were intentionally shared between the two publications (Enan et al., 2023 andAbdel-Shafi et al., 2022, retracted) as they originated from the same experimental series, as a common experimental baseline for both. Alternatively, the two treatment groups datasets (BS and M11S) were unique for each of (Abdel-Shafi et al., 2022, retracted andEnan et al., 2023), respectively. Additionally, the scientific objectives differed totally between the two manuscripts." It should be clarified that the retraction of the first publication (Abdel-Shafi et al., 2022, retracted) has no bearing on the experimental data reused in the present article. The reuse of these shared controls was not disclosed in the original manuscript since the two articles were nearly prepared at the same time.❖ The published wording describing the interpretation of the ANOVA test is incorrect. The published text inadvertently states that rejection of the null hypothesis (p < 0.05) indicates the absence of significant differences between the means.The correct interpretation is:• If p < 0.05, the null hypothesis is rejected, indicating evidence of staZsZcally significant differences among the group means.• If p ≥ 0.05, the null hypothesis is not rejected, indicating that no staVsVcally significant differences were detected.A correction has been made to Materials and Methods, 2."SPSS program version 23 statistically analyzed the mean and standard deviation data. Two-way ANOVA tests were performed to compare the different microorganisms (i.e., L. monocytogenes, K. oxytoca, L. ivanovii, S. aureus, P. mirabilis, P. aeruginosa, and S. typhimurium), as well as the different concentrations, i.e., 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1, 2, 4, and 8µg/ml for 11S and 0.0125, 0.025, 0.05, 0.1, 0.3, and 0.5µg/ml for M11S, and the interactions between them for inhibition zone diameter. The null hypothesis was rejected if the ANOVA p-value was < 0.05, indicating statistically significant differences among the group means. When the p-value was ≥ 0.05, the null hypothesis was not rejected, indicating that no statistically significant differences were detected. The two-way ANOVA test with a post-hoc test using Duncan's test was applied to make multiple comparisons between the averages of different groups. Means followed by the same letter were not significantly different at the 5% probability level (Duncan's multiple range tests). The results were presented as the means of three replicates ± SD." The statistical analyses which were conducted using two-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple-range test accurately reflect the methods applied to the original datasets.❖ There was a mismatch between the SEM method mentioned that 30 k.V. while in figure 5 there were also few pictures taken at 25 k.v. The method section (2.2.9. Scanning electron microscopy of bacterial biofilm, the last phrase) complies now with the figure and reads (before coating with gold-palladium and observation at 25 and 30 K.V).❖ There is typo error on the results (section 3.2.7.), which is now corrected and reads (thus destroying the biofilm after 24 h of incubation at 37•C.)❖ There was a typo or copy-paste error during the handling of data in Table 1. Therefore, the mean concentration effect at this concentration must be 0.00f ± 0.00, not 7.429 ± 0 which should be moved to the next right and so the other values and the corrected values in the last row should read as follows: In response to an enquiry comment on the interpretation of NMR and FTIR analysis we revised the relevant section and induced the following clarifications and corrections to eliminate typographic errors and ambiguity.We have corrected the integration error at 1.51 ppm from (1H) to (3H). The right diagnostic signal for a carboxyl methyl ester (-COOCH₃) appeared at 3.6-3.8 ppm, while the peak at 2.68 ppm is irrelevant and should be removed from the text.The units used to describe the 7.50→8.58 shift, should be corrected from Hz to ppm throughout the manuscript. The signal describing "imine" should be changed to amide (included in the peptide bond), consistent with a protein backbone environment.The comment of the 11S NMR spectrum should be clarified to read (The 11S globulin spectrum, containing ~6 discrete, involving NMR resonances with clean integer proton indicated the true complexity of a heterogeneous, high-molecular-weight protein.)Regarding the qualitative nature of the FTIR evidence, we should clarify that we conducted other quantitative experimental analyses, to consolidate the reliability of our esterification claims. We mentioned that The data in Figure 1A