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.

[EX Q]: This experiment was conducted to evaluate whether pretreatment with fenofibrate could mitigate acute lung injury (ALI) in a mice model of intestinal ischemia/reperfusion (I/R). Male C57BL/6 mice were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 6): sham, intestinal I/R + vehicle, and intestinal I/R + fenofibrate. Intestinal I/R was achieved by clamping the superior mesenteric artery. Fenofibrate (100 mg/kg) or equal volume of vehicle was injected intraperitoneally 60 minutes before the ischemia. At the end of experiment, measurement of pathohistological score, inflammatory mediators and other markers were performed. In addition, a 24-hour survival experiment was conducted in intestinal I/R mice treated with fenofibrate or vehicle. The chief results were as anticipated. Pathohistological evaluation indicated that fenofibrate ameliorated the local intestine damage and distant lung injury. Pretreatment with fenofibrate significantly decreased inflammatory factors in both the intestine and the lung. Consistently, renal creatine levels and hepatic ALT levels were significantly decreased in the fenofibrate group. Moreover, serum systemic inflammatory response indicators were significantly alleviated in the fenofibrate group. In addition, fenofibrate administration significantly improved the survival rate. Collectively, our data indicated that pretreatment with fenofibrate prior to ischemia attenuated intestinal I/R injury and ALI. Acute lung injury (ALI) is a critically severe, life-threatening condition in ICU, characterized by high mortality of approximately 40% 1 . ALI, along with its more severe form, acute respiratory distress syndrome, often results from a massive insult to the lung, whether be the direct alveolar infiltration or the indirect effects of systemic inflammatory response syndrome or multiple organ dysfunction syndromes 2 . An effective treatment of this life-threatening disorder calls for a better understanding of the molecular pathophysiology of ALI. The intestine is recognized to be one of the largest immune barrier systems and to be the source of bacteria and endotoxins in the body 3 . Previous reports indicate that the intestinal organ plays a crucial role in the development of ALI 4 . Mesenteric artery ischemia, a commonly seen critical state during small bowel transplantation or trauma, may lead to intestinal ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury. During the process of intestinal I/R injury, local bacteria overgrow and translocate, gastrointestinal mobility decreases, and mucosal permeability increases, all of which subsequently lead to the local intestine damage or distant lung injuries through the activation of systemic inflammatory response syndrome or multiple organ dysfunction syndromes 5,6 . Intestinal I/R is, therefore, a useful model for the investigation of pathophysiological mechanism of indirect ALI. Fenofibrate is known as an agonist of the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor -α (PPARα ), the nuclear receptor superfamily member 7 . As a nuclear receptor activator, fenofibrate up-regulates or down-regulates genes that are involved in many pathophysiological processes, such as oxidative stress, inflammation, and leukocyte endothelium interactions 8, 9 . Recent studies have demonstrated an anti-oxidant, anti-inflammatory, and anti-ischemic role of fenofibrate to attenuate I/R injury in kidney 10,11 , liver 12 , brain 13,14 and heart 15 . But to date there are no literatures reporting the protective effects of fenofibrate in I/R injury in the organ of intestine. Moreover, the functional significance of fenofibrate in the intestinal I/R-induced ALI remains unclear. Therefore, this experiment is aimed to investigate whether fenofibrate administration would ameliorate the lung injury and inflammation in the model of intestinal I/R injury. Animals. The male C57BL/6 mice (8-10-wk-old; 20 ± 2 g) were purchased from Charles River (Beijing, China). Mice were kept in a temperature (21 ± 2 °C) and humidity (60 ± 5%) controlled room on a 12-hour light/dark cycle. They were fed a standard mice chow and water ad liblitum. All experiments were performed in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and were approved by the Institutional Animal Ethical Committee of the Peking Union Medical College Hospital.
[EX A]: Protective effects of fenofibrate against acute lung injury induced by intestinal ischemia/reperfusion in mice OPEN

[EX Q]: Recently identified broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) show great potential for clinical interventions against HIV-1 infection. However, resistant strains may impose substantial challenges. Here, we report on the identification and characterization of a panel of HIV-1 strains with broad and potent resistance against a large number of bnAbs, particularly those targeting the CD4-binding site (CD4bs). Site-directed mutagenesis revealed that several key epitope mutations facilitate resistance and are located in the inner domain, loop D, and β23/loop V5/β24 of HIV-1 gp120. The resistance is largely correlated with binding affinity of antibodies to the envelope trimers expressed on the cell surface. Our results therefore demonstrate the existence of broadly resistant HIV-1 strains against CD4bs neutralizing antibodies. Treatment strategies based on the CD4bs bnAbs must overcome such resistance to achieve optimal clinical outcomes. Recently identified broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) show great potential for clinical interventions against HIV-1 infection. Among the bnAbs isolated to date, those targeting the CD4bs are the most abundant and thoroughly studied as they disrupt the crucial step of viral interaction with the cellular receptor molecule CD4. Despite the superior potency and breadth of these CD4bs bnAbs, each fails to neutralize a small but significant portion of pseudotyped virus panels. Here, we report on the identification and characterization of a panel of HIV-1 strains with broad and potent resistance against a large number of bnAbs, particularly those targeting the CD4bs. Resistance is largely attributed to mutated residues within the epitopes or steric hindrance imposed by the bulky side-chain or glycan shield of the mutated residues, and is largely correlated with reduced binding avidity of the antibody to the quaternary trimeric envelope protein expressed on the PLOS Pathogens | https://doi.surface of the transfected cells. Treatment strategies based on the CD4bs bnAbs therefore must overcome such resistance to achieve optimal clinical outcomes. Recent scientific advances have identified a growing number of broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) against human immunodeficiency virus type I (HIV-1), providing promising candidates for HIV-1 prevention and treatment [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Compared with bnAbs isolated in earlier studies, these bnAbs demonstrated broader and more potent activity against global HIV-1 panels and displayed impressive safety and efficacy profiles for therapeutic applications in a number of animal models and human clinical trials [1, [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] . These results also offer the opportunity to tailor these antibodies and maximize their prevention and treatment potential. Broadly speaking, these bnAbs recognize six major "vulnerable sites" on the HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein gp160 (gp120 and gp41), which are (1) the CD4-binding site (CD4bs), (2) the V1V2 apex, (3) the V3 glycan, (4) the fusion peptide (FP), (5) subunit interface and (6) membrane proximal external region (MPER) of gp41[1-5]. These bnAbs neutralize HIV-1 by blocking viral entry into the target cells, although additional effector functions are likely at play, particularly in the context of in vivo infection and clinical application[1, 12-16]. Among the bnAbs isolated to date, those targeting the CD4bs are the most abundant and thoroughly studied as they disrupt the first and crucial step of viral interaction with the cellular receptor CD4 [3, 4, 17, 18] . In this step, the trimeric envelope glycoprotein, composed of gp120 and gp41, binds with the target cell through the receptor CD4, with either CCR5 or CXCR4 as co-receptor [19] [20] [21] . This triggers a cascade of conformational changes that fuses the viral envelope with the target membrane and releases the viral genome into the cell [22, 23] .More than two dozen CD4bs bnAbs have been isolated to date. This number is likely to grow with the advent of more specific and high-throughput techniques for isolating antibodies.For instance, the prototype VRC01 and its close relative VRC03, which effectively neutralize a panel of diverse pseudotyped viruses,were isolated from a clade-B infected individual [24] [25] [26] . The more recently isolated CD4bs bnAbs, such as 3BNC117, N6, N49P7, 3BNC60, VRC-PG04, VRC-PG20, NIH45-46, VRC-CH31, 12A12, CH103, 8ANC131, VRC13, and VRC16, have shown similar or even enhanced potency and breadth compared with VRC01 [1-5, 27, 28].The CD4bs bnAbs are classified into two groups based on their mode of recognition and heavy chain characteristics, such as the VRC01 class(3BNC117, N6, N49P7, 3BNC60, VRC-PG04, VRC-PG20, NIH45-46, VRC-CH31 and 12A12) and non-VRC01 classes (CH103, 8ANC131, VRC13 and VRC16) [17, 18] . Structurally, these bnAbs recognize residues within the inner domain, the Loop D, the CD4 binding loop, and the β23/loop V5/β24 region [17, 18, [29] [30] [31] .The V1V2 and V3 loop also impact recognition,particularly in the context of the quaternary trimeric envelope protein [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] .The primary mechanism of neutralization mimics and competes with the CD4 receptorto bind HIV-1 gp120, thereby preventing bound trimers from transitioning to the subsequent steps required for membrane fusion, although evidence indicates that there are differences in the fine details of this process [17, 18, 35, 36] . Despite the superior potency and breadth of these CD4bs bnAbs, each fails to neutralize a small but significant portion of pseudotyped virus panels [17, 25, 27, 28, 37, 38].For instance, VRC01 is unable to neutralize about 10% of tested viruses [25] , and resistant strains have been isolated from patients infected with subtype B, subtype C, CRF07_BC, and CRF08_BC[29, [39] [40] [41] [42] . Furthermore, reports show thatVRC01-, 3BNC117-and N6-resistant strains have emerged in both animal models and human clinical trials [11, 15, [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] , indicating that resistant virus Broadly resistant HIV-1 against CD4bs antibodies PLOS Pathogens | https://doi.org/10.
[EX A]: Broadly resistant HIV-1 against CD4-binding site neutralizing antibodies

[EX Q]: Purpose of review-New respiratory viruses have been discovered in recent years and new molecular diagnostic assays have been developed that improve our understanding of respiratory virus infections. This article will review the changing epidemiology of these viruses after hematopoietic stem cell and solid organ transplantation. Recent findings-Respiratory viruses are frequently detected in transplant recipients. A number of viruses have been newly discovered or emerged in the last decade, including human metapneumovirus, human bocavirus, new human coronaviruses and rhinoviruses, human polyomaviruses, and a new 2009 pandemic strain of influenza A/H1N1. The potential for these viruses to cause lower respiratory tract infections after transplantation varies, and is greatest for human metapneumovirus and H1N1 influenza, but appears to be limited for the other new viruses. Acute and long term complications in hematopoietic and solid organ transplant recipients are active areas of research. Summary-Respiratory viral infections are frequently associated with significant morbidity following transplantation and are therefore of great clinical and epidemiologic interest. As new viruses are discovered, and more sensitive diagnostic methods are developed, defining the full impact of emerging respiratory viruses in transplant recipients must be elucidated by welldesigned clinical studies.
[EX A]:
Changing Epidemiology of Respiratory Viral Infections in Hematopoietic Cell Transplant Recipients and Solid Organ Transplant Recipients