Front. Pharmacol. Frontiers in Pharmacology Front. Pharmacol. 1663-9812 Frontiers Media S.A. 897243 10.3389/fphar.2022.897243 Pharmacology Correction Corrigendum: Bioassay-Guided Interpretation of Antimicrobial Compounds in Kumu, a TCM Preparation From Picrasma quassioides’ Stem via UHPLC-Orbitrap-Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer Combined With Fragmentation and Retention Time Calculation Hu et al. Corrigendum: 25 Antimicrobial Compounds of Kumu Hu Haibo 1 2 * Hu Changling 3 Peng Jinnian 2 Ghosh Alokesh Kumar 1 Khan Ajmal 1 Sun Dan 1 4 Luyten Walter 1 * 1 Department of Biology, Animal Physiology and Neurobiology Section, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium 2 National Engineering Research Center for Modernization of Traditional Chinese Medicine—Hakka Medical Resources Branch, School of Pharmacy, Gannan Medical University, Ganzhou, China 3 Laboratory for Functional Foods and Human Health, Center for Excellence in Postharvest Technologies, North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, North Carolina Research Campus, Kannapolis, NC, United States 4 College of Life Sciences, NanKai University, Tianjin, China

Edited and reviewed by: Mukhlesur Rahman, University of East London, United Kingdom

 *Correspondence: Haibo Hu, haibo.hu@kuleuven.be; Walter Luyten, walter.luyten@kuleuven.be

This article was submitted to Ethnopharmacology, a section of the journal Frontiers in Pharmacology

 25 04 2022 2022 13 897243 15 03 2022 29 03 2022 Copyright © 2022 Hu, Hu, Peng, Ghosh, Khan, Sun and Luyten. 2022 Hu, Hu, Peng, Ghosh, Khan, Sun and Luyten

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 A Corrigendum on Bioassay-Guided Interpretation of Antimicrobial Compounds in Kumu, a TCM Preparation From Picrasma quassioides’ Stem via UHPLC-Orbitrap-Ion Trap Mass Spectrometer Combined With Fragmentation and Retention Time Calculation by Hu, H., Hu, C., Peng, J., Ghosh, A. K., Khan, A., Sun, D. and Luyten, W. (2021). Front. Pharmacol. 12:761751. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2021.761751 Picrasma quassioides kumu beta-carboline orbitrap elite MS fragmenter fragmentation prediction

In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 3 as published. The IC50, and MBC calculations of positive controls were unintentionally incorrect when generated by software Graphpad, and may make people confused about their high IC50 values in the original manuscript. Hence, the tests of these compounds were repeated twice again to confirm these results. The corrected Table 3 appears below.

Antimicrobial activity (μg/ml) of three β-carbolines.

Microbials Methylnigakinone (2) Nigakinone (10) β-Carboline-1-carboxylic acid (25) Positive control a
IC50 MBC IC50 MBC IC50 MBC IC50 MBC
S. aureus 205.70 >500 55.35 >125 47.70 >125 0.28 >125
S. epidermidis NT NT 69.18 >125 50.88 >125 0.49 125
M. luteus 137.10 >250 87.29 >250 33.99 64 2.63 >64
L. innocua NT NT 35.04 >250 117.80 >125 0.59 >125
E. faecalis 109.00 >500 50.07 >125 70.66 >125 9.44 b 125 b
B. cereus 102.40 >250 38.75 >250 30.48 >125 0.02 >125
E. coli NT NT NT NT 19.17 >125 0.02 <3.91
P. aeruginosa NT NT NT NT NT NT 0.02 7.81
S. sonnei NT NT NT NT 14.81 >125 0.02 31.25
S. flexneri 194.80 >250 29.99 >250 3.96 125 0.02 <3.91
A. baumannii NT NT NT NT 30.28 >125 0.17 15.62
E. aerogenes NT NT NT NT 93.65 >125 0.04 >125
B. diminuta NT NT 10.46 >64 4.50 64 2.26 >64
A. hydrophila NT NT 68.64 >64 10.03 64 <0.01 0.02
S. enterica subsp. enterica NT NT 490.12 >500 19.34 >64 0.01 2.00
C. parapsilosis 236.00 >500 201.50 >500 NT NT 0.13 c 12.56 c
C.albicans 356.90 >500 493.80 >500 NT NT 0.01 c 12.56 c
C. auris 32.82 >125 31.91 >125 NT NT 0.10 c >50 c
C. glabrata NT NT NT NT NT NT 0.12 c >12.56 c
S. cerevisiae NT NT NT NT NT NT 0.44 c >50 c

Positive control: Ciprofloxacin.

Chloramphenicol.

Miconazole.

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.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.