In this task, you are given a paragraph (from a research paper) and your task is to classify each sentence of the paragraph (assume n sentence) into the following categories: Background, Purpose, Method, Finding/Contribution, or Other. Return the output in this format: 1 - category of sentence 1, 2 - category of sentence 2, ..., n - category of sentence n; where each number indicates the order of the sentence. The categories can be identified using the following questions: 
 Background: - Why is this problem important? - What relevant works have been done before? - What did the previous works miss? - What are the high-level research questions? - How might this help other researchers?
 Purpose: - What specific things do the researchers want to do? - What specific knowledge do the researchers want to know? - What specific hypothesis do the researchers want to test?
 Method: - How did the researchers do it or find it out? - What are the procedures and steps of this research?
 Finding/Contribution: - What did the researchers find out? Did the proposed methods work? - Did things behave as the researchers expected?
Other: put every text fragment that does not fit into any of the categories above here. Put a sentence here if its not in English, is not part of the article, contains numbers and dates, is a caption of a figure or a table, is a formatting error, or you are not sure about it.

Input: Consider Input: After 3-day acclimation, pigs in the challenged group were inoculated with a prototype US PEDV isolate US/Iowa/18984/ 2013 (GenBank accession #KF804028) (Hoang et al., 2013), 10 3 plaque-forming units/pig, via oro-gastric gavage as previously described (Madson et al., 2014). Pigs in the control group received virus-free cell culture media. Some of these pigs were inoculated again with the same strain in the identical manner at day 56 post-inoculation (PI).

Output: 1 - finding, 2 - finding, 3 - finding, 4 - finding


Input: Consider Input: Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), a pandemic threat to human beings, has aroused huge concern worldwide, but no bibliometric studies have been conducted on MERS research. The aim of this study was to map research productivity on the disease based on the articles indexed in PubMed. The articles related to MERS dated from 2012 to 2015 were retrieved from PubMed. The articles were classified into three categories according to their focus. Publication outputs were assessed and frequently used terms were mapped using the VOS viewer software. A total of 443 articles were included for analysis. They were published in 162 journals, with Journal of Virology being the most productive (44 articles; 9.9%) and by six types of organizations, with universities being the most productive (276 articles; 62.4%).The largest proportion of the articles focused on basic medical sciences and clinical studies (47.2%) and those on prevention and control ranked third (26.2%), with those on other focuses coming in between (26.6%). The articles on prevention and control had the highest mean rank for impact factor (IF) (226.34), followed by those on basic medical sciences and clinical studies (180.23) and those on other focuses (168.03). The mean rank differences were statistically significant (p = 0.000). Besides, "conronavirus", "case", "transmission" and "detection" were found to be the most frequently used terms. The findings of this first bibliometric study on MERS suggest that the prevention and control of the disease has become a big concern and related research should be strengthened.

Output: 1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - background, 4 - background, 5 - purpose, 6 - method, 7 - method, 8 - method, 9 - method, 10 - method, 11 - method, 12 - method, 13 - method, 14 - method, 15 - finding, 16 - finding, 17 - finding, 18 - finding, 19 - finding, 20 - finding


Input: Consider Input: ACE2 is a monocarboxypeptidase which generates Angiotensin (1-7) from Angiotensin II (1-8). Attempts to target the kidney Renin Angiotensin System using native ACE2 to treat kidney disease are hampered by its large molecular size, 100 kDa, which precludes its glomerular filtration and subsequent tubular uptake. Here, we show that both urine and kidney lysates are capable of digesting native ACE2 into shorter proteins of~60-75 kDa and then demonstrate that they are enzymatically very active. We then truncated the native ACE2 by design from the C-terminus to generate two short recombinant (r)ACE2 variants (1-605 and 1-619AA). These two truncates have a molecular size of~70 kDa, as expected from the amino acid sequence and as shown by Western blot. ACE2 enzyme activity, measured using a specific substrate, was higher than that of the native rACE2 (1-740 AA). When infused to mice with genetic ACE2 deficiency, a single i.v. injection of 1-619 resulted in detectable ACE2 activity in urine, whereas infusion of the native ACE2 did not. Moreover, ACE2 activity was recovered in harvested kidneys from ACE2-deficient mice infused with 1-619, but not in controls (23.1 ± 4.3 RFU/µg creatinine/h and 1.96 ± 0.73 RFU/µg protein/hr, respectively). In addition, the kidneys of ACE2-null mice infused with 1-619 studied ex vivo formed more Ang (1-7) from exogenous Ang II than those infused with vehicle (AUC 8555 ± 1933 vs. 3439 ± 753 ng/mL, respectively, p < 0.05) further demonstrating the functional effect of increasing kidney ACE2 activity after the infusion of our short ACE2 1-619 variant. We conclude that our novel short recombinant ACE2 variants undergo glomerular filtration, which is associated with kidney uptake of enzymatically active proteins that can enhance the formation of Ang (1-7) from Ang II. These small ACE2 variants may offer a potentially useful approach to target kidney RAS overactivity to combat kidney injury.


Output: 1 - background, 2 - background, 3 - background, 4 - finding, 5 - method, 6 - finding, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding, 13 - finding, 14 - finding, 15 - finding, 16 - finding, 17 - finding, 18 - finding