Correction: A transmission relationship investigation of HIV infection through male-to-male sex among a case of left-behind children with heterosexual orientation in Zhejiang Province of China

The legend of FIGURE 2 was erroneously displayed as FIGURE 2 Bayesian phylogenetic tree of consensus sequences from the P1, P2, and local controls. The original version of this article has been updated. Adding/removing text In the Methods of abstract, the sentence was erroneously given as [HIV DNA was extracted, and specific gene regions were amplified, cloned, and sequenced. Phylogenetic trees were created using MEGA V6. 0 to identify HIV subtypes, calculate genetic distances, and analyze genetic associations. . The correct sentence in the Methods of abstract is HIV RNA was extracted, and specific gene regions were amplified, cloned, and sequenced. Phylogenetic trees were constructed using MEGA V6. 0 to identify HIV subtypes, calculate genetic distances, and analyze genetic associations. In the Results of abstract, the text was erroneously given as P2 is an adult, did not communication with P1 about his HIV status and had unprotected sex with P1 before P1 tested HIV positive. The correct text in the Results of abstract is P2 is an adult, did not communicate with P1 about his HIV status and had unprotected sex with P1 before P1 tested HIV positive. In the Results of abstract, the text was erroneously given as P2 reported seven male sexual partners in same district, P1 was one of them and all other sexual partners were HIV-negative. The correct text in the Results of abstract is P2 reported seven male sexual partners in the same district, P1 was one of them and all other sexual partners were HIV-negative. In the Results of abstract, the text was erroneously given as Phylogenetic analysis revealed that both P1 and P2 had CRF01AE/CRF55₀1B/CRF07BC recombinant HIV, with genetic similarities in the gag, pol, and env regions of 98. 8, 99. 5, and 98. 8% for P1 and 99. 0, 99. 7, and 99. 0% for P2. . The correct text in the Results of abstract is Phylogenetic analysis revealed that both P1 and P2 had CRF01AE/CRF55₀1B/CRF07BC recombinant HIV. The genetic similarity of the P1 sample and the two P2 samples in the gag, pol and env gene regions was 98. 8, 99. 5 and 98. 8%, and 99. 0, 99. 7 and 99. 0%, respectively. In the Conclusion of abstract, the text was erroneously given as Epidemiological and phylogenetic analyses concluded that P1 contracted HIV through unprotected sex with an HIV-positive P2 who did not disclosure his HIV infection. . The correct text in the Conclusion of abstract is Epidemiological and phylogenetic analyses suggest that P1 may have contracted HIV through unprotected sex with an HIVpositive P2 who did not disclose his HIV infection. . The original version of this article has been updated. There was an error in the content of the specified paragraph. The text of results, subsection Transmission relationship, Paragraph 2 was erroneously given as The genetic similarity of P1 and P2-1 in the gag, pol and env gene regions were 98. 8, 99. 5, and 98. 8%, respectively; the genetic similarity of P1 and P2-2 in the gag, pol and env gene regions were 99. 0, 99. 7, and 99. 0%, respectively. The genetic similarity of P2-1 and P2-2 in the gag, pol and env gene regions were 98. 7, 99. 6, and 99. 9%, respectively. Env gene regions were 98. 7, 99. 6, and 99. 9% genetically similar, respectively (Table 1). . A correction has been made to the section Results, subsection Transmission relationship, Paragraph 2: The genetic similarity of P1 and P2-1 in the gag, pol and env gene regions were 98. 8, 99. 5, and 98. 8%, respectively; the genetic similarity of P1 and P2-2 in the gag, pol and env gene regions were 99. 0, 99. 7, and 99. 0%, respectively. The genetic similarity of P2-1 and P2-2 in the gag, pol and env gene regions were 98. 7, 99. 6, and 99. 9%, respectively (Table 1). There was an error in the content of the specified paragraph. The text of results, subsection Transmission relationship, Paragraph 3 was erroneously given as The average within-group genetic distances between P1 and P2 had mean intra-group genetic distances of 0. 003 ± 0. 001 and 0. 010 ± 0. 001 in the pol and env gene regions, respectively, while the mean inter-group genetic distances from control sequences were 0. 058 ± 0. 008 and 0. 130 ± 0. 010, respectively (Table 2), with statistically significant differences between the two groups (p<0. 001). . A correction has been made to the sectionResults, subsection Transmission relationship, Paragraph 3: The mean within-group genetic distances of P1 and P2 in the pol and env gene regions were 0. 003±0. 001 and 0. 010±0. 001, respectively, while the mean within-group genetic distances between them and the control sequences were 0. 058±0. 008 and 0. 130±0. 010, respectively (Table 2), with statistically significant differences between the two groups (p < 0. There was an error in the content of the specified paragraph. The text of results, subsection Transmission relationship, Paragraph 4 was erroneously given as [In the gag and env gene regions, the paraphyletic sequences of Pl and P2 were in the same evolutionary branch, bootstrap value = 99%, and the average genetic distance within clusters ≤ 0. 015, and both of them were in paraphyletic phenomenon (Figures 2A, B). . A correction has been made to the sectionResults, subsection Transmission relationship, Paragraph 4: Epidemiological and phylogenetic analyses highly suggest that P1 acquired HIV through unprotected sexual contact with HIV-positive P2, who had not disclosed his HIV status. In the gag and env gene regions, the paraphyletic sequences of Pl and P2 were in the same evolutionary branch, bootstrap value = 99%, and the average genetic distance within clusters ≤ 0. 015, and both of them were in paraphyletic phenomenon (Figures 2A, B). There was an error in the content of the specified paragraph. The text was erroneously given as The genetic similarity between the two specimens of P1 and P2 in the gag, pol and env gene regions was more than 98. 8%, and the higher genetic similarity of the genes represented the higher genetic homology (23, 24). The average genetic distance within the groups of P1 and P2 in the pol and env gene regions was smaller than the average genetic distance between the groups of P1 and P2 with the control sequences, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0. 001). . A correction has been made to the sectionDiscussion, Paragraph 1: The genetic similarity between the two specimens of P1 and P2 in the gag, pol and env gene regions was more than 98. 8%, and the higher similarity of the genes represented the higher genetic homology (23, 24). The mean genetic distance within the groups of P1 and P2 in the pol and env gene regions was smaller than the average genetic distance between the groups of P1 and P2 with the control sequences, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0. 001). The original version of this article has been updated.