TASK DEFINITION: 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".
PROBLEM: Paragraph: This paper describes the molecular detection of respiratory viruses from nasopharyngeal flocked swabs (flocked swabs) and nasopharyngeal washes (washes) in a clinical setting. Washes and flocked swabs collected from children < 3 years old hospitalized with a lower respiratory tract infection were tested for parainfluenza virus 1-3, respiratory syncytial virus, influenza A and B and metapneumovirus (Group 1) and adenovirus, rhinovirus and coronavirus (Group 2) using realtime reverse transcriptase PCR (rRT-PCR). A consensuses standard was used to determine sensitivity and compare cycle thresholds (C T ) of washes and flocked swabs for each virus and group of viruses. Sensitivities ranged from 79 to 89% and 69 to 94% for flocked swabs and washes, respectively, excluding AdV which had a sensitivity of 35% for flocked swabs. When the flocked swabs and washes of Group 1 viruses were collected on the day of admission, the sensitivity of both sample types was 100%. Wash specimens had a lower C T value and higher sensitivity than flocked swabs; however there was no statistical difference in the sensitivity of a flocked swab (89%) versus wash (93%) for the detection of Group 1 viruses, particularly when samples were collected on the same day. Flocked swabs may be a useful alternative to washes for detection of respiratory viruses in clinical settings. 
 Title: Comparison of nasopharyngeal flocked swabs and nasopharyngeal wash collection methods for respiratory virus detection in hospitalized children using real-time polymerase chain reaction HHS Public Access

SOLUTION: False

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The replicase of mouse hepatitis virus strain JHM (MHV-JHM) is encoded by two overlapping open reading frames, ORF1a and ORF1b, which are translated to produce a 750-kDa precursor polyprotein. The polyprotein is proposed to be processed by viral proteinases to generate the functional replicase complex. To date, only the MHV-JHM amino-terminal proteins p28 and p72, which is processed to p65, have been identified. To further elucidate the biogenesis of the MHV-JHM replicase, we cloned and expressed five regions of ORF1a in bacteria and prepared rabbit antisera to each region. Using the immune sera to immunoprecipitate radiolabeled proteins from MHV-JHM infected cells, we determined that the MHV-JHM ORF1a is initially processed to generate p28, p72, p250, and p150. Pulse±chase analysis revealed that these intermediates are further processed to generate p65, p210, p40, p27, the MHV 3C-like proteinase, and p15. A putative replicase complex consisting of p250, p210, p40, p150, and a large protein (Ͼ300 kDa) coprecipitate from infected cells disrupted with NP-40, indicating that these proteins are closely associated even after initial proteolytic processing. Immunofluorescence studies revealed punctate labeling of ORF1a proteins in the perinuclear region of infected cells, consistent with a membrane-association of the replicase complex. Furthermore, in vitro transcription/translation studies of the MHV-JHM 3Cpro and flanking hydrophobic domains confirm that 3C protease activity is significantly enhanced in the presence of canine microsomal membranes. Overall, our results demonstrate that the MHV-JHM ORF1a polyprotein: (1) is processed into more than 10 protein intermediates and products, (2) requires membranes for efficient biogenesis, and (3) is detected in discrete membranous regions in the cytoplasm of infected cells. 
 Title: Processing of the Coronavirus MHV-JHM Polymerase Polyprotein: Identification of Precursors and Proteolytic Products Spanning 400 Kilodaltons of ORF1a

SOLUTION: False

PROBLEM: Paragraph: Methods for investigating human pain have been developed over the last 100 years. Typically, researchers focus on people with clinical pain, or on healthy participants undergoing laboratory-controlled paininduction techniques focussed mostly on exogenously generated skin nociception. Less commonly investigated are acute pain experiences that emerge naturally. Six common painful complaints were identified: headache, muscular pain, visceral pain, menstrual pain, dental pain, and pain associated with upper respiratory tract infection. Methods used to recruit participants with the natural occurrence of each pain complaint were identified, and features of their use reviewed. Also reviewed were experimental analogues designed to mimic these pains, with the exception of menstrual pain. Headache and menstrual pain appear to be most effectively researched in their naturally occurring form, whereas muscle and dental pain may be more easily induced. Upper respiratory tract infection and abdominal pain provide further challenges for researchers. Summary guidance is offered, and directions for methods development outlined. Ó 
 Title: Comprehensive review Methods for studying naturally occurring human pain and their analogues

SOLUTION:
False