Correction to: Scientific Reports https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-23978-z, published online 04 April 2018

This Article contains an error in the Results section under the subheading ‘Performance comparison among call methods using simulation data’.

“We found that when the insertions were ≥2 bp length and contained repetitive sequence from the flanking region, de novo assembly (Inchworm) did not work well (Table S3).”

should read:

“We found that when the insertions were ≥25 bp length and contained repetitive sequence from the flanking region, de novo assembly (Inchworm) did not work well (Table S3).”