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".

Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: The plaque assay has long served as the "gold standard" to measure virus infectivity and test antiviral drugs, but the assay is labor-intensive, lacks sensitivity, uses excessive reagents, and is hard to automate. Recent modification of the assay to exploit flow-enhanced virus spread with quantitative imaging has increased its sensitivity. Here we performed flow-enhanced infection assays in microscale channels, employing passive fluid pumping to inoculate cell monolayers with virus and drive infection spread. Our test of an antiviral drug (5-fluorouracil) against vesicular stomatitis virus infections of BHK cell monolayers yielded a two-fold improvement in sensitivity, relative to the standard assay based on plaque counting. The reduction in scale, simplified fluid handling, imagebased quantification, and higher assay sensitivity will enable infection measurements for high-throughput drug screening, sero-conversion testing, and patient-specific diagnosis of viral infections. 
 Title: Infection on a chip: a microscale platform for simple and sensitive cell-based virus assays

Output: True


Input: Consider Input: 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

Output: False


Input: Consider Input: Paragraph: Sharing of preprints-scientific manuscripts that are posted in a publicly accessible, online repository before peer review for journal publication-can accelerate access to information in infectious disease outbreaks, according to an article published earlier this month by Michael Johansson and colleagues in PLOS Medicine. In an analysis of published articles and those posted on preprint servers, the authors found that preprint posting increased during the 2015-17 outbreak of Zika in the Americas relative to the 2014-15 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and that preprints, while still used for only a small proportion of papers, provided much earlier access to scientific findings [1] . For medical journal editors who agreed in late 2015 and early 2016 that authors should not be penalized for sharing results in public health emergencies [2-4], these results signal gratifying progress over practices in 2003, when the severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic was shown to have ended before 93% of journal articles on the epidemiology of SARS were published [5] . PLOS Medicine has long permitted the posting of preprints for research articles submitted to the journal, and this remains our policy. For the most part, posting of preprints has been occasional, undertaken on the initiative of authors without the journal's involvement. In the coming months, PLOS journals that handle research in more basic biological fields will begin facilitating preprint posts of journal submissions, with author approval, on the bioRxiv preprint server operated by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory [6] . PLOS Medicine will not initially be offering transfer of submitted manuscripts to bioRxiv as preprints. Because the journal's scope encompasses clinical and policy-related research, we believe it is important now to establish appropriate standards for the early sharing of research that has potential implications for human health but has not been peer reviewed. As preprint servers for clinically focused research become more widely available and preprint posting becomes more routine and more closely integrated with journal publishing, editors of medical journals should join the conversation about best practices for preprint sharing in medical research. In calling for wider use of preprints, Johansson and colleagues note the importance of protecting participant confidentiality, ensuring that posted research was ethically conducted, and guarding against misinterpretation of results that have yet to undergo peer review, either by traditional journal routes or through newer, more public venues [1] . In medical research, competing interests have been shown to be associated with reported outcomes [7] , and editors and peer reviewers persuade authors to tone down overstated conclusions prior to publication as a matter of course. At the same time, the press and other media networks are expected to disseminate the latest available information, and even readers with an urgent interest in a given health-related topic may be hard pressed to assess the validity of research methodology. As publication practices evolve, what is the best way for the medical research community to fulfill PLOS Medicine | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed. 
 Title: Preprints in medical research: Progress and principles


Output: True