In this task, you're given a paragraph from the research paper and your task is to generate a suitable title for the research paper based on the given paper. Under 100 words is a good title length.

Q: The performance of the new ePlex Respiratory Pathogen (RP) panel (GenMark Diagnostics) for the simultaneous detection of 19 viruses (influenza A virus; influenza A H1 virus; influenza A 2009 H1 virus; influenza A H3 virus; influenza B virus; adenovirus; coronaviruses [HKU1, OC43, NL63, and 229E]; human rhinovirus/enterovirus; human metapneumovirus; parainfluenza viruses 1, 2, 3, and 4; and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV] [RSV subtype A and RSV subtype B] ) and 2 bacteria (Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia pneumoniae) was evaluated. Prospectively and retrospectively collected nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens (n ϭ 2,908) were evaluated by using the ePlex RP panel, with the bioMérieux/BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel (BioFire RP) as the comparator method. Discordance analysis was performed by using target-specific PCRs and bidirectional sequencing. The reproducibility of the assay was evaluated by using reproducibility panels comprised of 6 pathogens. The overall agreement between the ePlex RP and BioFire RP results was Ͼ95% for all targets. Positive percent agreement with the BioFire RP result for viruses ranged from 85.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.2% to 88.9%) to 95.1% (95% CI, 89.0% to 97.9%), while negative percent agreement values ranged from 99.5% (95% CI, 99.1% to 99.7%) to 99.8% (95% CI, 99.5% to 99.9%). Additional testing of discordant targets (12%; 349/2,908) confirmed the results of ePlex RP for 38% (131/349) of samples tested. Reproducibility was 100% for all targets tested, with the exception of adenovirus, for which reproducibilities were 91.6% at low virus concentrations and 100% at moderate virus concentrations. The ePlex RP panel offers a new, rapid, and sensitive "sample-to-answer" multiplex panel for the detection of the most common viral and bacterial respiratory pathogens.

A: Multicenter Evaluation of the ePlex Respiratory Pathogen Panel for the Detection of Viral and Bacterial Respiratory Tract Pathogens in Nasopharyngeal Swabs
****
Q: We live in a hostile environment, surrounded by microbial pathogens and subject to a range of physical and chemical insults. To survive in this environment, vertebrates have evolved complex immune systems. A key element of this defence is the deployment of rapid response elements at the most probable sites of attack, which are the epithelial-cell boundaries between the body and the environment in the skin, gut and lungs. As the body's largest and most exposed interface with the environment, the skin has a central role in host defence. Before the relatively recent discovery of the immunological defences of skin, the cutaneous interface was viewed as a passive barrier between the host and the hostile environment. In the past few decades, however, it has become apparent that the mechanical aspects of epidermal defence are reinforced by a versatile and robust system of immune surveillance 1 (FIG. 1) . The crucial role of immune surveillance in maintaining homeostasis is evident from the marked increase in the frequency and severity of cutaneous malignancies and infections when immune function is limited, for example in patients with genetic and acquired immunodeficiency disorders and in those receiving immunosuppressive therapy after organ transplantation 2,3 . The regulation of skin defence mechanisms is also crucial, as inappropriate or misdirected immune activity is implicated in the pathogenesis of a large variety of acquired inflammatory skin disorders, including psoriasis, atopic and allergic contact dermatitis, lichen planus, alopecia areata and vitiligo 4-10 . The role of immune dysfunction in these conditions is emphasized by their response to immunosuppressive therapeutic interventions [11] [12] [13] [14] . Understanding the mechanisms of immune surveillance in the skin and tissue-specific immune responses also has important implications for the rational design of vaccines. To promote protective immunity, an immunization protocol must elicit not only an antigenspecific immune response, but also an effective memory response that will provide long-lived protection at the most probable sites of invasion. This applies equally to immunization against infectious organisms, which in most cases invade through the skin or the epithelia of the gastrointestinal or respiratory systems, and to the elicitation of immune responses against tumours. As we discuss, the route and means of adjuvant stimulation that is used can affect the effectiveness and utility of specific vaccine strategies. In this review, we discuss these issues in the context of recent advances in our understanding of cutaneous immune mechanisms, highlighting the interaction of The skin, as the primary interface between the body and the environment, provides the first line of defence against a broad array of microbial pathogens and trauma. In addition to its properties as a physical barrier, the skin has many active defence mechanisms. In this review, we discuss the interaction between the innate and adaptive immune systems in the skin as a model for immune function at epithelial-cell interfaces with the environment. How these mechanisms account for the robust nature of cutaneous immune surveillance and how their dysregulation drives the pathogenesis of inflammatory skin disorders and skin-based tumours are the subjects of this review.

A: IMMUNE SURVEILLANCE IN THE SKIN: MECHANISMS AND CLINICAL CONSEQUENCES
****
Q: Introduction Viral acute respiratory infections (ARIs) cause substantial child morbidity. Sensitive molecularbased assays aid virus detection, but the clinical significance of positive tests remains uncertain as some viruses may be found in both acutely ill and healthy children. We describe disease-pathogen associations of respiratory viruses and quantify virus-specific attributable risk of ARIs in healthy children during the first 2 years of life. Methods One hundred fifty-eight term newborn babies in Brisbane, Australia, were recruited progressively into a longitudinal, community-based, birth cohort study conducted between September 2010 and October 2014. A daily tick-box diary captured predefined respiratory symptoms from birth until their second birthday. Weekly parent-collected nasal swabs were batch-tested for 17 respiratory viruses by PCR assays, allowing calculation of virus-specific attributable fractions in the exposed (AFE) to determine the proportion of virus-positive children whose ARI symptoms could be attributed to that particular virus. Results Of 8100 nasal swabs analysed, 2646 (32.7%) were virus-positive (275 virus codetections, 3.4%), with human rhinoviruses accounting for 2058/2646 (77.8%) positive swabs. Viruses were detected in 1154/1530 (75.4%) ARI episodes and in 984/4308 (22.8%) swabs from asymptomatic periods. Respiratory syncytial virus (AFE: 68% (95% CI 45% to 82%)) and human metapneumovirus (AFE: 69% (95% CI 43% to 83%)) were strongly associated with higher risk of lower respiratory symptoms. Discussion The strong association of respiratory syncytial virus and human metapneumovirus with ARIs and lower respiratory symptoms in young children managed within the community indicates successful development of vaccines against these two viruses should provide substantial health benefits.

A:
Viruses causing lower respiratory symptoms in young children: findings from the ORChID birth cohort Respiratory infection
****