Correction: Butt, U.A.; De Biase, D. The Urinary Microbiota and the Gut–Bladder Axis in Bladder Cancer. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2025, 26, 10558
Usman Akhtar Butt, Daniela De Biase

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
TopicsBladder and Urothelial Cancer Treatments · Gut microbiota and health · Urinary Tract Infections Management
In the original publication [1], there are two references that were retracted, which need to be corrected.
With this correction, the order of some references and relevant statements has been adjusted accordingly. [Retracted Paper 1]—Deciphering the Urinary Microbiota Repertoire by Culturomics Reveals Mostly Anaerobic Bacteria From the Gut [17] in the accepted article. The scientific content of [17] could not be replaced by any other publication, as far as the authors know. Therefore, the authors decided to remove any mention of the “gastrointestinal tract” (specifically referring to [17]), but included [84] (now [17]), which is equally relevant on the interconnection of bladder–vagina microbiomes.
Original sentence in the article: “…… [15] and the vaginal and gastrointestinal tracts are considered likely sources of urinary microbiota due to their anatomical proximity [16,17]”. Now rephrased as follows: “…… [15]. Furthermore, in females the bladder and vagina harbor microbial communities with several bacterial taxa commonly detected at both sites, likely due to their anatomical proximity [16,17].”
[Retracted Paper 2]—Microbiome analyses of blood and tissues suggest cancer diagnostic approach ([63] in the accepted article).
The text does not need any changes. The authors removed [63] and added [66] (now [65]), which is equally relevant in that sentence.
The authors state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. This correction was approved by the Academic Editor. The original publication has also been updated.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
