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.

The performance of the new ePlex Respiratory Pathogen (RP) panel (GenMark Diagnostics) for the simultaneous detection of 19 viruses (influenza A virus; influenza A H1 virus; influenza A 2009 H1 virus; influenza A H3 virus; influenza B virus; adenovirus; coronaviruses [HKU1, OC43, NL63, and 229E]; human rhinovirus/enterovirus; human metapneumovirus; parainfluenza viruses 1, 2, 3, and 4; and respiratory syncytial virus [RSV] [RSV subtype A and RSV subtype B] ) and 2 bacteria (Mycoplasma pneumoniae and Chlamydia pneumoniae) was evaluated. Prospectively and retrospectively collected nasopharyngeal swab (NPS) specimens (n ϭ 2,908) were evaluated by using the ePlex RP panel, with the bioMérieux/BioFire FilmArray Respiratory Panel (BioFire RP) as the comparator method. Discordance analysis was performed by using target-specific PCRs and bidirectional sequencing. The reproducibility of the assay was evaluated by using reproducibility panels comprised of 6 pathogens. The overall agreement between the ePlex RP and BioFire RP results was Ͼ95% for all targets. Positive percent agreement with the BioFire RP result for viruses ranged from 85.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.2% to 88.9%) to 95.1% (95% CI, 89.0% to 97.9%), while negative percent agreement values ranged from 99.5% (95% CI, 99.1% to 99.7%) to 99.8% (95% CI, 99.5% to 99.9%). Additional testing of discordant targets (12%; 349/2,908) confirmed the results of ePlex RP for 38% (131/349) of samples tested. Reproducibility was 100% for all targets tested, with the exception of adenovirus, for which reproducibilities were 91.6% at low virus concentrations and 100% at moderate virus concentrations. The ePlex RP panel offers a new, rapid, and sensitive "sample-to-answer" multiplex panel for the detection of the most common viral and bacterial respiratory pathogens.
Multicenter Evaluation of the ePlex Respiratory Pathogen Panel for the Detection of Viral and Bacterial Respiratory Tract Pathogens in Nasopharyngeal Swabs

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.
IMMUNE SURVEILLANCE IN THE SKIN: MECHANISMS AND CLINICAL CONSEQUENCES

Human metapneumovirus (hMPV) is a recently discovered virus that causes respiratory illness in children that can lead to hospitalization. Our study was undertaken to further understand hMPV-associated illness, compare clinical characteristics of hMPV and respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), and establish the utility of routine screening for hMPV. We retrospectively identified hMPV-associated illnesses described among children with respiratory symptoms admitted to a tertiary care center in southeast Michigan during the 2006-2007 respiratory viral season. A convenience sample of 256 nasopharyngeal specimens was subjected to nucleic acid extraction and amplification to identify those specimens positive for hMPV. A medical record review was undertaken to retrieve demographic and clinical data of patients with hMPV, comparing them to RSVpositive patients and patients evaluated for respiratory symptoms who were negative for hMPV and RSV. We found that hMPV was the second most commonly identified virus after RSV. hMPV-positive patients were older than RSV-positive patients. Among hMPV-positive patients, pneumonia was diagnosed in 37.5% and bronchiolitis in 31.2%, peribronchial cuffing was present on chest radiographs of 37.5%, antibiotic treatment was used in 81.2%, and admission to the ICU was seen in 37.5%. Finally, hMPV-positive patients were more likely to have fever than RSV-positive patients or patients negative for hMPV and RSV. We concluded that hMPV is a major pathogen associated with hospitalization of children and with the same severity of illness as RSV but in a slightly older population. Because of the apparent prevalence and severity of illness, routine screening should be implemented. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License (by-nc 3.0). ©Copyright N.

Human metapneumovirus and respiratory syncytial virus: subtle differences but comparable severity