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]: The baculovirus expression vector system (BEVS) is a versatile and powerful platform for protein expression in insect cells. With the ability to approach similar post-translational modifications as in mammalian cells, the BEVS offers a number of advantages including high levels of expression as well as an inherent safety during manufacture and of the final product. Many BEVS products include proteins and protein complexes that require expression from more than one gene. This review examines the expression strategies that have been used to this end and focuses on the distinguishing features between those that make use of single polycistronic baculovirus (co-expression) and those that use multiple monocistronic baculoviruses (co-infection). Three major areas in which researchers have been able to take advantage of co-expression/co-infection are addressed, including compound structure-function studies, insect cell functionality augmentation, and VLP production. The core of the review discusses the parameters of interest for co-infection and co-expression with time of infection (TOI) and multiplicity of infection (MOI) highlighted for the former and the choice of promoter for the latter. In addition, an overview of modeling approaches is presented, with a suggested trajectory for future exploration. The review concludes with an examination of the gaps that still remain in co-expression/co-infection knowledge and practice.
[EX A]: Co-expression vs. co-infection using baculovirus expression vectors in insect cell culture: Benefits and drawbacks

[EX Q]: Duck plague virus (DPV) is a representative pathogen transmitted among aquatic animals that causes gross lesions and immune inhibition in geese and ducks. The mechanism of organ tropism and innate immune evasion of DPV has not been completely deciphered due to a lack of cell models to study the innate immune manipulation and pathogenicity of aquatic viruses. In the present study, we isolated five types of duck primary cells [duck embryo fibroblasts (DEFs), neurons, astrocytes, peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), and monocytes/macrophages] to identify appropriate cell models for DPV, using tropism infection and innate immunologic assays. Cells responded differently to stimulation with DNA viruses or RNA virus analogs. DPV infection exhibited broad tropism, as the recombinant virulent strain (CHv-GFP) infected DEFs, neurons, astrocytes, and monocytes/macrophages, but not the PBMCs, as the expression of EGFP was negligible. The basal levels of innate immunity molecules were highest in monocytes/macrophages and lower in DEFs and astrocytes. Conversely, the titer and genomic copy number of the attenuated virus strain was higher in DEFs and astrocytes than in neurons and monocytes/macrophages. The titer and genomic copy number of the attenuated virus strain were higher compared with the virulent strain in DEFs, neurons, and astrocytes. The innate immune response was not significantly induced by either DPV strain in DEFs, neurons, or astrocytes. The virulent strain persistently infected monocytes/macrophages, but the attenuated strain did so abortively, and this was accompanied by the phenomenon of innate immune inhibition and activation by the virulent and attenuated strains, respectively. Blockage of IFNAR signaling promoted replication of the attenuated strain. Pre-activation of IFNAR signaling inhibited infection by the virulent strain. The selection assay results indicated that induction of innate immunity plays an essential role in controlling DPV infection, and monocytes/macrophages are an Tian et al. Duck Primary Cells Infection Models important cell model for further investigations. Our study provided practical methods for isolating and culturing duck primary cells, and our results will facilitate further investigations of organ tropism, innate immune responses, latent infection, and the effectiveness of antiviral drugs for treating DPV and potentially other aerial bird pathogens.
[EX A]: Isolation and Selection of Duck Primary Cells as Pathogenic and Innate Immunologic Cell Models for Duck Plague Virus

[EX Q]: Formalin-inactivated Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) vaccines are widely available, but the effects of formalin inactivation on the antigenic structure of JEV and the profile of antibodies elicited after vaccination are not well understood. We used a panel of monoclonal antibodies (MAbs) to map the antigenic structure of live JEV virus, untreated control virus (UCV), formalin-inactivated commercial vaccine (FICV), and formalin-inactivated virus (FIV). The binding activity of T16 MAb against Nakayama-derived FICV and several strains of FIV was significantly lower compared to live virus and UCV. T16 MAb, a weakly neutralizing JEV serocomplex antibody, was found to inhibit JEV infection at the post-attachment step. The T16 epitope was mapped to amino acids 329, 331, and 389 within domain III (EDIII) of the envelope (E) glycoprotein. When we explored the effect of formalin inactivation on the immunogenicity of JEV, we found that Nakayama-derived FICV, FIV, and UCV all exhibited similar immunogenicity in a mouse model, inducing anti-JEV and anti-EDII 101/ 106/107 epitope-specific antibodies. However, the EDIII 329/331/389 epitope-specific IgG antibody and neutralizing antibody titers were significantly lower for FICV-immunized and FIV-immunized mouse serum than for UCV-immunized. Formalin inactivation seems to alter the antigenic structure of the E protein, which may reduce the potency of commercially available JEV vaccines. Virus inactivation by H 2 O 2 , but not by UV or by short-duration and higher temperature formalin treatment, is able to maintain the antigenic structure of the JEV E protein. Thus, an alternative inactivation method, such as H 2 O 2 , which is able to maintain the integrity of the E protein may be essential to improving the potency of inactivated JEV vaccines. We demonstrated that formalin inactivation of Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV) alters the antigenic structure of the JEV envelope glycoprotein (E), in particular an epitope in domain III, and that this reduces the ability of the inactivated vaccine to elicit protective neutralizing antibodies. Ours and others' previous studies have highlighted the importance of improving the immunogenicity of genotype III (GIII)-derived JEV vaccine in order to provide cross-protection against genotype I (GI) viruses, which are emerging and replacing GIII viruses in many JEV-endemic regions. Encouraging the wide use of live-attenuated or chimeric vaccines, such as SA14-14-2 or yellow-fever 17D/JEV vaccines, respectively, developing GI virus-derived inactivated or premembrane/E-containing, noninfectious virus-like particle (VLP) vaccines are two other possible ways to address this potential problem. In this exploratory study, we highlight an alternative inactivation method, such as H 2 O 2 treatment, which may improve the antigenic stability and immunogenicity of JEV. Japanese encephalitis virus (JEV), the most important etiological agent of viral encephalitis in Asian countries, causes regular outbreaks in eastern and southeastern Asia, India, and more recently in Australia [1,2]. Annually, 30,000 to 50,000 Japanese encephalitis (JE)-confirmed cases are reported in the JEV endemic areas, and 20% to 60% of symptomatic CNS infections are fatal [3-6]; 25% to 50% of symptomatic survivors have long-term neurological sequelae [7] . Asymptomatic JEV infection is about a thousand-fold higher than confirmed cases [8] [9] [10] . JEV is transmitted by virus-infected Culex mosquitos from inapparently infected viremic-amplifying hosts such as pigs or aquatic birds to symptomatic accidental hosts, such as horses and humans. Migratory birds have been implicated as the source of virus been introduced into new geographic regions, and associated with JE epidemics and replacement of genotype III (GIII)with genotype I (GI)-JEV from southeast Asia to east Asia [11, 12] . The genome of JEV consists of a~11-kb, positive-sense, single-stranded RNA, which is translated and processed by viral and host proteases to three structural proteins-capsid, precursor membrane/membrane protein (prM/M) and envelope glycoprotein (E)-and seven nonstructural proteins (NS)-NS1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4A, 4B and 5. The mature virion consists of 180 E proteins forming 90 homodimers and 180 processed M proteins. The immature virion is formed by 60 E and prM hetero-trimers [13, 14] . E protein is the most critical protein eliciting protective immunity in hosts after viral infection, offering critical protection in mice [15] and inducing protective antibodies in recovering humans [16] . The ectodomain of E protein can be separated into three structural domains: E domain I (EDI) to III (EDIII). The fusion peptide in EDII elicits group cross-reactive non-or low-neutralizing antibodies; EDIII, the receptor-binding domain, elicits potent type-specific neutralizing antibodies; and EDI, the center domain connecting EDII and EDIII, elicits complex cross-reactive high-or non-neutralizing antibodies after viral infection [16] [17] [18] . Vaccination remains the most effective strategy to control JE epidemics [19]. Live-attenuated and formalin-inactivated JEV vaccines are available for human use, but only live-attenuated vaccines are available for domestic animals, such as swine and horses. The first generation inactivated JEV vaccine, developed by BIKEN in Japan, was the mouse brain-derived, formalin-inactivated GIII Nakayama strain; manufacture of this vaccine has ceased since 2005 because of undesirable adverse effects [20] . Second generation tissue culture-derived, formalin-Formalin Inactivation Alters the Immunogenicity of JEV PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases |
[EX A]:
Formalin Inactivation of Japanese Encephalitis Virus Vaccine Alters the Antigenicity and Immunogenicity of a Neutralization Epitope in Envelope Protein Domain III