Following publication of this article [1], the authors noted two errors.

Specifically:

• The published article reports samples sizes of CIS-HET = 43 and SGM = 22 for the microbiome analysis. These values correspond to the full enrolled sample, but only 41 participants returned stool samples. The correct sample sizes for the microbiome analysis are CIS-HET N = 27 and SGM N = 14. Subgroup sample sizes in the SGM group are corrected to 9 (sexual minority only) and 5 (gender and sexual minority).
• Table 1 did not include a p-value and sample size for Characteristic: Race.

The following text has been corrected:

The fifth sentence of the abstract is updated to: “Stool samples were returned by 41 participants and constituted the analytic sample for microbiome analyses (CIS‑HET N = 27; SGM N = 14).”

The Interviews and Gut microbial diversity sections of the Methods are updated.

Specifically:

• The first sentence of the Interviews section is updated to: After enrollment, all 65 participants (CIS‑HET N = 43; SGM N = 22) completed a 45-minute in-person interview, which occurred at the start of the semester.
• The third sentence of the interviews section is updated to: Additionally, participants were asked to collect a stool sample at home and return it to the research team for storage within 48hr following the interview. Trained assessors completed the interviews and collected biological samples.
• The fourth sentence of the first paragraph of the Gut microbial diversity section is updated to: Forty-one participants (CIS-HET N = 27; SGM N = 14) returned a stool sample for microbiome analysis. Participants that did not return samples within 48 hours of the interview were not included in the microbiome analysis. Of the 14 SGM samples, 9 were provided by sexual minority only participants while 5 were provided by gender and sexual minority participants.
• The second sentence of the second paragraph of the Results section is updated to: When sexual minorities only were analyzed separately from gender and sexual minorities compared to the CIS-HET group, alpha diversity was significantly reduced among sexual minorities only (N = 9; Shannon Alpha Diversity mean = 4.89, SD = 0.76) and gender and sexual minorities (N = 5; Shannon Alpha Diversity mean = 4.69, SD = 0.89) compared to the CIS-HET group.

Additionally, the authors have provided an updated Fig 1. See the correct figure and legend here.

Table 1 has been updated to include the p-value and sample size for Characteristic: Race. Please see the correct table here.

Please note that the concerns do not affect the results or conclusions for this study. A member of the Editorial Board reviewed the corrected Figure and Table and stated that the conclusions in [1] are still supported.

The authors apologize for the errors in the published article.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Characteristics of the study sample.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347379.t001

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. The average relative abundance of microbial phyla of the gut microbiome among the CIS-HET and SGM groups.

The average relative abundance of major bacterial phyla in stool samples from cisgender-heterosexual (CIS-HET) and sexual and gender minority (SGM) participants. Bars represent individual participants (CIS-HET N = 27, SGM N = 14). Phyla composing <0.01% are combined and represented as other.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0347379.g001