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.
--------
Question: This paper attempts to understand optimal ventilation rates at the national level across 26 European countries and to contrast the benefits of optimizing ventilation with filtration of outdoor air pollution and control of indoor sources. This is an important topic given the key role of the housing sector in tackling both air pollution and climate change. Although the methods used are relatively simplistic, they are appropriate for analyses performed at the scale presented in the paper. The findings and conclusions are well supported by the results. I would therefore support publication. However, I believe the manuscript would benefit from a stronger statement of the aims of the work and some clarifications regarding the methods (see below). My main concern relates to the assumption made by the authors that indoor-generated PM2.5 is equally as harmful to health as outdoor-generated PM2.5. There is little evidence to support this (though it is quite a commonly made assumption). I would like to see some form of sensitivity analysis in relation to this assumption, since it may have an impact on the final results (though probably not on the ultimate conclusions). More detailed comments can be found below. I consider the suggested revisions to be relatively minor. 1. Is the question posed original, important and well defined? The research question posed by the paper is important and I believe the methods used are appropriate to answer it. However, the aims of the paper are not currently well stated (in both the main text and in the abstract). The main statement of the aims comes towards the end of page 5, which states "This work aims to summarize the current understanding of the sources of health risks in indoor environments and their relationship to ventilation requirements". This doesn't really capture what the authors have actually done. There is a slightly better statement of the aims hidden in the Methods (top of page 7) but even this doesn't quite feel sufficient. 2. Are the data sound and well controlled? Yes, although the source of some of the input data can be made clearer in the text, especially in relation to Table 2 (see below) . 3. Is the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) well balanced and supported by the data? Yes. 4. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to allow others to evaluate and/or replicate the work? The methods are generally well described. However, I have a few specific issues (see the additional comments below). The methods are based on relatively simplistic tools (both the mass-balance exposure model and the risk/health impact model). However, I think they are appropriate for the type of analysis presented in the paper. My main concern relates to the assumption of equal health risk associated with both outdoor-and indoor-generated PM2.5. The authors discuss this briefly in the Discussion section but this assumption is highly uncertain since almost all of the published epidemiology is based on outdoor PM2.5. The paper would benefit from greater emphasis on the sensitivity of the results to this assumption. Perhaps, the analysis (or part of it) could be repeated without the effects of indoorgenerated PM2.5 or with a reduced exposure-response coefficient? 6. Can the writing, organization, tables and figures be improved? Although the manuscript is generally well written, there are reoccurring problems, most importantly missing articles throughout the paper (e.g. a, the). For instance, in the abstract, "Based on measurements of the European Environment Agency (EEA),…" and "A framework for developing European health-based ventilation guidelines…" would be preferable. I realise that English is not the authors' first language (and, again, I should stress that most of the language used is very good). However, I think the paper would benefit from a thorough edit by a native English speaker. Also, the figures appear to be quite pixelated and may not be in an appropriate format for publication. 7. When revisions are requested. No preference. 8. Are there any ethical or competing interests issues you would like to raise? None. • I believe the abstract would benefit from a little editing. At present, the Background section feels unnecessarily long and there isn't enough detail in either the Methods or Results sections. The methods used for the health impact calculations aren't mentioned at all, despite being key to the paper. At the moment, I don't feel the main results are clearly stated in the abstract. • The paper refers throughout to "optimization". I think a mathematician might object to the use of the term because the method doesn't actually use a formal optimization process. I don't think this is too much of a problem but I do think a clear statement of what the authors mean by optimization would be helpful (e.g. in the Methods). As I understand it, the "optimal" ventilation rate is just taken to be the one for which the health burden is smallest.

Answer: Reducing burden of disease from residential indoor air exposures in Europe (HEALTHVENT project) Reducing burden of disease from residential indoor air exposures in Europe (HEALTHVENT project)


Question: The development of high-throughput molecular technologies and associated bioinformatics has dramatically changed the capacities of scientists to produce, handle, and analyze large amounts of genomic, transcriptomic, and proteomic data. A clear example of this step-change is represented by the amount of DNA sequence data that can be now produced using next-generation sequencing (NGS) platforms. Similarly, recent improvements in protein and peptide separation effi ciencies and highly accurate mass spectrometry have promoted the identifi cation and quantifi cation of proteins in a given sample. These advancements in biotechnology have increasingly been applied to the study of animal infectious diseases and are beginning to revolutionize the way that biological and evolutionary processes can be studied at the molecular level. Studies have demonstrated the value of NGS technologies for molecular characterization, ranging from metagenomic characterization of unknown pathogens or microbial communities to molecular epidemiology and evolution of viral quasispecies. Moreover, high-throughput technologies now allow detailed studies of hostpathogen interactions at the level of their genomes (genomics), transcriptomes (transcriptomics), or proteomes (proteomics). Ultimately, the interaction between pathogen and host biological networks can be questioned by analytically integrating these levels (integrative OMICS and systems biology). The application of high-throughput biotechnology platforms in these fi elds and their typical low-cost per information content has revolutionized the resolution with which these processes can now be studied. The aim of this chapter is to provide a current and prospective view on the opportunities and challenges associated with the application of massive parallel sequencing technologies to veterinary medicine, with particular focus on applications that have a potential impact on disease control and management.

Answer: Chapter 30 Next-Generation Sequencing in Veterinary Medicine: How Can the Massive Amount of Information Arising from High- Throughput Technologies Improve Diagnosis, Control, and Management of Infectious Diseases?


Question: The mammalian RIG-I-like receptors, RIG-I, MDA5 and LGP2, are a family of DExD/H box RNA helicases responsible for the cytoplasmic detection of viral RNA. These receptors detect a variety of RNA viruses, or DNA viruses that express unusual RNA species, many of which are responsible for a great number of severe and lethal diseases. Host innate sentinel proteins involved in pathogen recognition must rapidly evolve in a dynamic arms race with pathogens, and thus are subjected to long-term positive selection pressures to avoid potential infections. Using six codon-based Maximum Likelihood methods, we were able to identify specific codons under positive selection in each of these three genes. The highest number of positively selected codons was detected in MDA5, but a great percentage of these codons were located outside of the currently defined protein domains for MDA5, which likely reflects the imposition of both functional and structural constraints. Additionally, our results support LGP2 as being the least prone to evolutionary change, since the lowest number of codons under selection was observed for this gene. On the other hand, the preponderance of positively selected codons for RIG-I were detected in known protein functional domains, suggesting that pressure has been imposed by the vast number of viruses that are recognized by this RNA helicase. Furthermore, the RIG-I repressor domain, the region responsible for recognizing and binding to its RNA substrates, exhibited the strongest evidence of selective pressures. Branch-site analyses were performed and several species branches on the three receptor gene trees showed evidence of episodic positive selection. In conclusion, by looking for evidence of positive evolutionary selection on mammalian RIG-I-like receptor genes, we propose that a multitude of viruses have crafted the receptors biological function in host defense, specifically for the RIG-I gene, contributing to the innate species-specific resistance/susceptibility to diverse viral pathogens.

Answer:
Positive Evolutionary Selection On the RIG-I-Like Receptor Genes in Mammals