Corrigendum: Biostimulation of Indigenous Microbial Community for Bioremediation of Petroleum Refinery Sludge

Jayeeta Sarkar ^1* Sufia Khannam Kazy ^2* Abhishek Gupta ¹ Avishek Dutta ³ Balaram Mohapatra ¹ Ajoy Roy ^2* Paramita Bera ^4* Adinpunya Mitra ⁴ Pinaki Sar ^5*

• ¹ Department of Biotechnology, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India
• ² Department of Biotechnology, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur, Durgapur, West Bengal, India
• ³ School of BioScience, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India
• ⁴ Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India
• ⁵ Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur, India

• please read through all the templates before choosing • pick the most relevant text template(s) from the following page and delete all others.• edit the text as necessary, ensuring that the original incorrect text is included for the record, please see the below. • please do not use any extra formatting when editing the templates, and only modify the red text unless absolutely necessary • submit to Frontiers following the instructions on this page.When the original text contained incorrect information, to preserve the scientific record, please include that text when editing the below templates. For example:There was a mistake in the Funding statement, an incorrect number was used. The correct number is "2015C03Bd051.". The publisher apologizes for this mistake.The original version of this article has been updated.In the published article, there was a mistake in the Funding statement. The funding statement for the Key Development Project of the Department of Science and Technology was displayed as "2015CBd051". The correct statement is "Key Development Project of Department of Science and Technology (2015C03Bd051).'' Corrigendum on: Sarkar J, Kazy SK, Gupta A, Dutta A, Mohapatra B, Roy A, Bera P, Mitra A and Sar P (2016) Biostimulation of Indigenous Microbial Community for Bioremediation of Petroleum Refinery Sludge. Front. Microbiol. 7:1407.doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.01407 In the published article, there was an error in the legend for SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S4 as published. There was a typographical error in the legend causing S4C to be referred to as S4G. Chromatograms shown earlier were rescaled, which are now replaced with original chromatograms. The legend has been updated accordingly. The corrected legend appears below. 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. In the published article, there was an error in FIGURE 2 | Gas chromatogram for GR3, U and N samples as published. In the original figure, the chromatogram of N_30 was inadvertently duplicated in place of N_90. The correct chromatogram has been restored and updated in the revised Figure 3. The corrected FIGURE 2: Gas chromatogram for GR3, U and N samples and its caption "GC-FID chromatograms showing constituent hydrocarbons after 30 and 90 days of microcosm incubation with or without nitrate amendment (U and N). Peaks have been assigned to carbon chain length corresponding to TPH standard (C10-28)" appear below.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.Reminder: Figures, tables, and images will be published under a Creative Commons CC-BY licence and permission must be obtained for use of copyrighted material from other sources (including re-published/adapted/modified/partial figures and images from the internet). It is the responsibility of the authors to acquire the licenses, to follow any citation instructions requested by third-party rights holders, and cover any supplementary charges.In the published article, there was an error in FIGURE 3 | Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of microcosm samples as published. FIGURE 3A showed the DGGE banding patterns of the studied samples and is comprised of lanes of the same gel which were spliced from the original gel image and arranged to match the UPGMA clustering done subsequently. Unfortunately, during the compilation of this gel image, lane P was duplicated as NS, and there was some mistake in the lane N as well. We are sorry for the oversight. The image has now been recompiled and all lanes of FIGURE 3A have been corrected. Re-analysis of the revised FIGURE 3A produced a change in the UPGMA clustering pattern and FIGURE 3B has been replaced accordingly. Based on the outcome of UPGMA re-analysis, the concerned results have been updated. The corrected FIGURE 3 | Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of microcosm samples and its caption DGGE patterns of bacterial communities from microcosms with various amendments (A) and Bray-Curtis cluster analysis among the DGGE band patterns (B). No amendment control (U) was also included. For Bray-Curtis analysis presence or absence of bands at corresponding positions was considered appear below.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.In the published article, there was an error in SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S4 as published. In the original figure, the chromatograms were resized. It has now been replaced with the unedited chromatograms. The corrected SUPPLEMENTARY FIGURE S4 and its caption "Gas chromatogram of selected samples, (A) original sludge before bioremediation treatment; (B) and (C) U after 21 and 90 days of incubation; (D)-(F) N after 21, 60 and 90 days of incubation. Chromatograms show response variable (mV) on Y axis with a scale of 4-50 mV and retention time (3-30 mins) along X axis. Carbon chain length range was determined by comparing with known TPH mix 3 (Sigma Aldrich) standard retention times, run in same method as that of the sample and displayed at the top" appear below.The authors apologize for these errors and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated. In the published article, there was an error in FIGURE 3, as explained previously. In light of the rectification of this figure, the results inferred from it have also been updated.A correction has been made to RESULTS, Shift in Microbial Community with Amendments paragraph number one. This sentence previously stated: "However, the UPGMA on presence and absence of bands showed a relationship between the treatments (Figure 3B). Presence of two distinct clades at a similarity index of 0.25 to 0.2 showed a clear clustering of band patterns among GR3, N, P, PS (clade A) and U, NP, NS, NPS (clade B) samples. The result also indicated a distinct change in community composition following incubation within the microcosm without any treatment (U) which was consistent even for NP, NS and NPS amendments. Interestingly, even after incubating with N or P or PS, the community compositions were more similar to the original one (Figure 3A)."The corrected sentence appears below: "However, the UPGMA on presence and absence of bands showed a relationship between the treatments (Figure 3B). Presence of two distinct clades at a dissimilarity index of 0.15 to 0.20 showed a clustering of band patterns among GR3, N, PS (clade A) and P, NP, NPS, NS (clade B) samples with U cladding separately. The result also indicated a distinct change in community composition following incubation within the microcosm without any treatment (U). Interestingly, even after incubating with N or PS, the community compositions were more similar to the original one, relative to the other treatments (Figure 3A)"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.End of template, if you would like to request a correction for a reason not seen here, please contact the journal's Editorial Office