The authors regret to report that HPLC was not used to quantify violacein in this study. Instead, Dr. Xu performed violacein quantification with a spectrophotometer at the characteristic absorbance wavelength of 575 nm (A575). The 31.5 mg/L was calculated from an old calibration curve developed by Dr. Xu. In the first version of the manuscript, Ms. Lynn Wong wrote “a high-producing violacein-producing strain was quickly identified via visual screening, and titers were subsequently quantified with HPLC”. The neglection to mention spectrophotometer method is due to a miscommunication between the first author and Dr. Xu. On the basis of the above information, the original statement should be corrected as follows: “A dark purple colony was subsequently chosen and cultivated in a test tube in CSM-Leu minimal media (C/N 80). Violacein was thoroughly extracted from this culture with an equal volume of pure ethyl acetate. After dilution, the extract displayed an absorbance of 0.292 absorbance units at 575 nm, which is close to the absorption maximum of violacein and indicated a tangible amount of violacein was produced”. Despite this error, our follow-on article (https://doi.org/10.1101/687012) has proven that spectrophotometer is technically equivalent to HPLC to measure violacein. In addition, we have validated the violacein titer through five biologically replicative colonies in the follow-on manuscript (https://doi.org/10.1101/687012), all five samples were quantified by HPLC. Our previously reported data (31.5 mg/L) falls within the range of these five biologically replicative data (21.4 mg/L, 32.7 mg/L, 20.5 mg/L, 25.4 mg/L and 38.2 mg/L). Therefore, the fundamental science of the published paper was not compromised or altered by this datum point. The authors would like to apologize for any inconvenience caused.