Publisher Correction: Cryo-EM structures of type IV pili complexed with nanobodies reveal immune escape mechanisms
David Fernandez-Martinez, Youxin Kong, Sylvie Goussard, Agustin Zavala, Pauline Gastineau, Martial Rey, Gabriel Ayme, Julia Chamot-Rooke, Pierre Lafaye, Matthijn Vos, Ariel Mechaly, Guillaume Duménil
Abstract
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsGlycosylation and Glycoproteins Research · Biochemical and Structural Characterization · Monoclonal and Polyclonal Antibodies Research
Correction to: Nature Communications 10.1038/s41467-024-46677-y, published online 18 March 2024
The original version of this Article contained an error in the Abstract, which incorrectly read ‘Cyro-EM in combination with molecular dynamics simulation of the nanobody-pilus complexes reveals how the different types of pili surface modifications alter nanobody binding.’ The correct version states ‘Cryo-’ in place of ‘Cyro-’.
The original version of this Article contained an error in the Introduction, which incorrectly read ‘Finally, a third level of variation comes from another PTM on serine 68, phosphoforms that can be phosphocholine (PC) or phosphoethanolamine (PEA) if the pptA allele is present in the strain, or a phosphoglycerol (glycerol-3-phosphate or G3P) if the pptB allele is present.’ The correct version states ‘serine 69’ in place of ‘serine 68’.
The original version of this Article contained an error in Figure 1 legend, which incorrectly read ‘c. Individual pilin subunit with G3P and GATDH, the hypervariable loop appears in dark blue. Close-ups of the phosphoglycerol moiety on S69 and on the GATDH moiety present on S63 are indicated.’ The correct version adds ‘SB’ after ‘Individual’.
The original version of this Article contained an error in the Results section, which incorrectly read ‘In contrast, despite the minor difference between the two sugar forms, the presence of a DATDH had a strong impact on F10 binding in both assays (Fig. 3b and Fig. 7c).’ The correct version states ‘3a’ in place of ‘3b’.
The original version of this Article contained three errors in the Methods section, which incorrectly read ‘ΔG4 strain (GATDH). The pglB1 ORF without the first 23 bp was amplified with Phusion Plus DNA Polymerase (Thermo Scientific, #F630S) from MS11 chromosomal DNA using the primers pglB1_MS11_fwd and pglB1_MS11_rev.’, ‘GC agar plates’ and ‘100x oil’. The correct version adds ‘(Supplementary Table 2)’ after ‘pglB1_MS11_rev.’, and states ‘GCB agar plates’ in place of ‘GC agar plates’ and ‘40x’ in place of ‘100x’.
These have been corrected in both the PDF and HTML versions of the Article.