In the article titled “Herpesvirus BACs: Past, Present, and Future” [1], there was an error in the second paragraph in the “Studies of Specific Herpesvirus BACs” section, where the text reading “For example, AD169, Towne, and TB40 are considered the “clinical” BAC strains whereas Toledo, FIX, PH, and TR are considered to be the “laboratory” BAC strains ” should be corrected to “For example, AD169, Towne, and TB40 are considered the “laboratory” BAC strains whereas Toledo, FIX, PH, and TR are considered to be the “clinical” BAC strains .”