In this task, you're given a paragraph and title from the research paper. Your task is to classify whether the given title is suitable or not for the research paper based on the given paragraph. Return "True" if title is proper according to paragraph else "False".

Example Input: Paragraph: Background: Based on clinical representation of disease symptoms multiple sclerosis (MScl) patients can be divided into two major subtypes; relapsing remitting (RR) MScl (85-90%) and primary progressive (PP) MScl (10-15%). Proteomics analysis of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) has detected a number of proteins that were elevated in MScl patients. Here we specifically aimed to differentiate between the PP and RR subtypes of MScl by comparing CSF proteins. Methodology/Principal Findings: CSF samples (n = 31) were handled according to the same protocol for quantitative mass spectrometry measurements we reported previously. In the comparison of PP MScl versus RR MScl we observed a number of differentially abundant proteins, such as protein jagged-1 and vitamin D-binding protein. Protein jagged-1 was over three times less abundant in PP MScl compared to RR MScl. Vitamin D-binding protein was only detected in the RR MScl samples. These two proteins were validated by independent techniques (western blot and ELISA) as differentially abundant in the comparison between both MScl types. 
 Title: Proteomics Comparison of Cerebrospinal Fluid of Relapsing Remitting and Primary Progressive Multiple Sclerosis
Example Output: True

Example Input: Paragraph: Ebola virus is the causative agent of Ebola virus disease in humans. The lethality of Ebola virus infection is about 50%, supporting the urgent need to develop anti-Ebola drugs. Glycoprotein (GP) is the only surface protein of the Ebola virus, which is functionally critical for the virus to attach and enter the host cells, and is a promising target for anti-Ebola virus drug development. In this study, using the recombinant HIV-1/Ebola pseudovirus platform we previously established, we evaluated a small molecule library containing various quinoline compounds for anti-Ebola virus entry inhibitors. Some of the quinoline compounds specifically inhibited the entry of the Ebola virus. Among them, compound SYL1712 was the most potent Ebola virus entry inhibitor with an IC 50 of~1 µM. The binding of SYL1712 to the vial glycoprotein was computationally modeled and was predicted to interact with specific residues of GP. We used the time of the addition assay to show that compound SYL1712 blocks Ebola GP-mediated entry. Finally, consistent with being an Ebola virus entry inhibitor, compound SYL1712 inhibited infectious Ebola virus replication in tissue culture under biosafety level 4 containment, with an IC 50 of 2 µM. In conclusion, we identified several related molecules with a diaryl-quinoline scaffold as potential anti-EBOV entry inhibitors, which can be further optimized for anti-Ebola drug development. 
 Title: Identification of Diaryl-Quinoline Compounds as Entry Inhibitors of Ebola Virus
Example Output: True

Example Input: Paragraph: Background: The majority of influenza transmission occurs in homes, schools and workplaces, where many frequently touched communal items are situated. However the importance of transmission via fomites is unclear since few data exist on the survival of virus on commonly touched surfaces. We therefore measured the viability over time of two H1N1 influenza strains applied to a variety of materials commonly found in households and workplaces. Methodology and Principal Findings: Influenza A/PuertoRico/8/34 (PR8) or A/Cambridge/AHO4/2009 (pandemic H1N1) viruses were inoculated onto a wide range of surfaces used in home and work environments, then sampled at set times following incubation at stabilised temperature and humidity. Virus genome was measured by RT-PCR; plaque assay (for PR8) or fluorescent focus formation (for pandemic H1N1) was used to assess the survival of viable virus. Conclusions/Significance: The genome of either virus could be detected on most surfaces 24 h after application with relatively little drop in copy number, with the exception of unsealed wood surfaces. In contrast, virus viability dropped much more rapidly. Live virus was recovered from most surfaces tested four hours after application and from some nonporous materials after nine hours, but had fallen below the level of detection from all surfaces at 24 h. We conclude that influenza A transmission via fomites is possible but unlikely to occur for long periods after surface contamination (unless reinoculation occurs). In situations involving a high probability of influenza transmission, our data suggest a hierarchy of priorities for surface decontamination in the multi-surface environments of home and hospitals. 
 Title: Survival of Influenza A(H1N1) on Materials Found in Households: Implications for Infection Control
Example Output:
True