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 purpose of this study was to compare the biochemical and biological properties of nonstructural protein (nsp) 15 among mouse hepatitis virus (MHV), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV) and transmissible gastroenteritis virus (TGEV) in virus-infected and ectopically expressed cells. In virus-infected cells, MHV nsp15 distributed unevenly throughout the cytoplasm but predominantly in the perinuclear region. When expressed as N-terminal enhanced green fluorescence protein (EGFP) fusion, it predominantly formed speckles in the cytoplasm. In contrast, SARS-CoV and TGEV EGFP-nsp15s distributed smoothly in the whole cell and did not form speckles. Deletion mapping experiments identified two domains responsible for the speckle formation in MHV EGFP-nsp15: Domain I (aa101-150) and Domain III (aa301-374). Interestingly, Domain II (aa151-250) had an inhibitory effect on Domain IIIbut not on Domain I-mediated speckle formation. Expression of a small (35aa) sequence in Domain III alone was sufficient to form speckles for all 3 viral nsp15s. However, addition of surrounding sequences in Domain III abolished the speckle formation for TGEV nsp15 but not for MHV and SARS-CoV nsp15s. Further domain swapping experiments uncovered additional speckle-inducing and -suppressive elements in nsp15s of SARS-CoV and TGEV. Homotypic interaction involving Domain III of MHV nsp15 was further demonstrated biochemically. Moreover, the biological functions of the expressed nsp15s were assessed in MHV-infected cells. It was found that the effects of EGFP-nsp15s on MHV replication were both virus species-and nsp15 domain-dependent. Collectively these results thus underscore the differential biochemical and biological functions among the nsp15s of MHV, TGEV and SARS-CoV in host cells.

A: Comparative in vivo analysis of the nsp15 endoribonuclease of murine, porcine and severe acute respiratory syndrome coronaviruses
****
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: The serological response profile of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) coronavirus (CoV) infection was defined by neutralization tests and subclass-specific immunofluorescent (IF) tests using serial sera from 20 patients. SARS CoV total immunoglobulin (Ig) (IgG, IgA, and IgM [IgGAM]) was the first antibody to be detectable. There was no difference in time to seroconversion between the patients who survived (n ‫؍‬ 14) and those who died (n ‫؍‬ 6). Although SARS CoV IgM was still detectable by IF tests with 8 of 11 patients at 7 months postinfection, the geometric mean titers dropped from 282 at 1 month postinfection to 19 at 7 months (P ‫؍‬ 0.001). In contrast, neutralizing antibody and SARS CoV IgGAM and IgG antibody titers remained stable over this period. The SARS CoV antibody response was sometimes associated with an increase in preexisting IF IgG antibody titers for human coronaviruses OC43, 229E, and NL63. There was no change in IF IgG titer for virus capsid antigen from the herpesvirus that was used as an unrelated control, Epstein-Barr virus. In contrast, patients who had OC43 infections, and probably also 229E infections, without prior exposure to SARS CoV had increases of antibodies specific for the infecting virus but not for SARS CoV. There is a need for awareness of cross-reactive antibody responses between coronaviruses when interpreting IF serology.

A:
Serological Responses in Patients with Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection and Cross-Reactivity with Human Coronaviruses 229E, OC43, and NL63
****