instruction:
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:
We live in a hostile environment, surrounded by microbial pathogens and subject to a range of physical and chemical insults. To survive in this environment, vertebrates have evolved complex immune systems. A key element of this defence is the deployment of rapid response elements at the most probable sites of attack, which are the epithelial-cell boundaries between the body and the environment in the skin, gut and lungs. As the body's largest and most exposed interface with the environment, the skin has a central role in host defence. Before the relatively recent discovery of the immunological defences of skin, the cutaneous interface was viewed as a passive barrier between the host and the hostile environment. In the past few decades, however, it has become apparent that the mechanical aspects of epidermal defence are reinforced by a versatile and robust system of immune surveillance 1 (FIG. 1) . The crucial role of immune surveillance in maintaining homeostasis is evident from the marked increase in the frequency and severity of cutaneous malignancies and infections when immune function is limited, for example in patients with genetic and acquired immunodeficiency disorders and in those receiving immunosuppressive therapy after organ transplantation 2,3 . The regulation of skin defence mechanisms is also crucial, as inappropriate or misdirected immune activity is implicated in the pathogenesis of a large variety of acquired inflammatory skin disorders, including psoriasis, atopic and allergic contact dermatitis, lichen planus, alopecia areata and vitiligo 4-10 . The role of immune dysfunction in these conditions is emphasized by their response to immunosuppressive therapeutic interventions [11] [12] [13] [14] . Understanding the mechanisms of immune surveillance in the skin and tissue-specific immune responses also has important implications for the rational design of vaccines. To promote protective immunity, an immunization protocol must elicit not only an antigenspecific immune response, but also an effective memory response that will provide long-lived protection at the most probable sites of invasion. This applies equally to immunization against infectious organisms, which in most cases invade through the skin or the epithelia of the gastrointestinal or respiratory systems, and to the elicitation of immune responses against tumours. As we discuss, the route and means of adjuvant stimulation that is used can affect the effectiveness and utility of specific vaccine strategies. In this review, we discuss these issues in the context of recent advances in our understanding of cutaneous immune mechanisms, highlighting the interaction of The skin, as the primary interface between the body and the environment, provides the first line of defence against a broad array of microbial pathogens and trauma. In addition to its properties as a physical barrier, the skin has many active defence mechanisms. In this review, we discuss the interaction between the innate and adaptive immune systems in the skin as a model for immune function at epithelial-cell interfaces with the environment. How these mechanisms account for the robust nature of cutaneous immune surveillance and how their dysregulation drives the pathogenesis of inflammatory skin disorders and skin-based tumours are the subjects of this review.
answer:
IMMUNE SURVEILLANCE IN THE SKIN: MECHANISMS AND CLINICAL CONSEQUENCES


question:
Bovine viral diarrhea virus (BVDV) is a pestivirus member of the Flaviviridae family, closely related to, and used as a surrogate model for the hepatitis C virus. Its envelope contains the E1 and E2 glycoproteins, disulfide linked into homo-and heterodimers. In this study, we investigate the role of disulfide bond formation in the folding, assembly, and stability of BVDV glycoproteins. We provide molecular evidence that intact disulfide bonds are critical for the acquirement of a stable conformation of E2 monomers. Forcing the E2 glycoproteins to adopt a reduced conformation either co-or post-translationally before assembly into dimers, determines their misfolding and degradation by proteasome. In contrast, dimerization of E2 glycoproteins results in a conformation resistant to reducing agents and degradation. Furthermore, inhibition of the ER-a-mannosidase activity leads to impairment of misfolded E2 degradation, demonstrating the involvement of this enzyme in targeting viral proteins towards proteasomal degradation. Ó
answer:
Role of disulfide bond formation in the folding and assembly of the envelope glycoproteins of a pestivirus


question:
publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. J. Dairy Sci. 97 :5035-5044 http://dx. Housing preweaned dairy calves in pairs rather than individually has been found to positively affect behavioral responses in novel social and environmental situations, but concerns have been raised that close contact among very young animals may impair their health. In previous studies, the level of social contact permitted in individual housing has been auditory, visual, or physical contact. It is unclear how these various levels of social contact compare with each other and to pair housing, when their effects on behavior and health are considered, and whether the timing of pair housing has an effect. To investigate this, 110 Holstein calves (50 males, 60 females) in 11 blocks were paired according to birth date. Within 60 h of birth, each pair of calves was allocated to 1 of 5 treatments: individual housing with auditory contact (I), individual housing with auditory and visual contact (V), individual housing with auditory, visual, and tactile contact (T), pair housing (P), or individual housing with auditory and visual contact the first 2 wk followed by pair housing (VP). At 6 wk of age, calves were subjected to a social test and a novel environment test. In the social test, all pair-housed calves (P and VP) had a shorter latency to sniff an unfamiliar calf than did individually housed calves (I, V, and T), whereas calves with physical contact (T, P, and VP) sniffed the unfamiliar calf for longer than calves on the remaining treatments (I and V). In the novel environment test, calves with physical contact (T, P, and VP) had a lower heart rate, and more of these calves vocalized during the test compared with calves without physical contact (I and V). No effect of treatment was found for clinical scores, levels of the 5 most common pathogens in feces, or in development of serum antibodies against the 3 most common respiratory pathogens. Calves housed individually are more fearful of unfamiliar calves than are pair-housed calves. Contrary to common belief, the allowance of physical contact and pair housing had no effects on the health of the calves.
answer:

Effects of level of social contact on dairy calf behavior and health