Prof. Noam Barda

The authors regret to report that one of the individuals in the study had his arm miscategorized (from arm 3 to arm 1). This has led to minor errors in the study results, though without changing the overall interpretation of the results or the conclusions. The first sentence of the Results section in the Abstract should read “Overall, 122 individuals (21, 19, 21, 20, 20, 20, and 21 in each arm) completed 90-day follow-up.” In the Results section of the paper, the data in the last couple of paragraphs are modified as “Spike-specific T cell activation peaked at 1 week, and were then higher for all investigational vaccines compared to BNT162b2/30μg, particularly, 2.42 (95% CI: 1.04, 5.63)-fold higher following monovalent-Omi.BA.1/30μg (Figure S3, Table S5).” “During the study period a BA.2∖5 surge took place in Israel (3). Infection proportions following both monovalent vaccines were similar: 22% (95% CI: 11%, 38%) following BNT162b2, and 29% (95% CI: 16%, 46%) following monovalent-Omi.BA.1. Observed infection proportions following the bivalent-Omi.BA.1 vaccines were lower, 12% (95% CI: 4%, 26%) (Table S6, Figure S4).” Both the tables present in the manuscript have also been updated as below. [Table presented] [Table presented] Similarly, the captions of the 3 figures remain the same but there are modifications in the figure themselves as shown below.[Formula presented][Formula presented][Formula presented] Also, the figures and tables in the supplementary material of the article have been updated to reflect the correction now. The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused.