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".

Q: Paragraph: We describe the association of caspase-dependent and caspase-independent mechanisms in macrophage apoptosis induced by LpqH, a 19 kDa Mycobacterium tuberculosis lipoprotein. LpqH triggered TLR2 activation, with upregulation of death receptors and ligands, which was followed by a death receptor signaling cascade with activation of initiator caspase 8 and executioner caspase 3. In this caspase-mediated phase, mitochondrial factors were involved in loss of mitochondrial transmembrane potential (ΔΨm), release of cytochrome c, and caspase 9 activation. Interestingly, a caspase-independent pathway was also identified; by immunoblot, the mitochondrial apoptosis inducing factor (AIF) was demonstrated in nuclei and cytosol of LpqH-treated macrophages. Confocal microscopy revealed translocation of AIF to the nuclei of the majority of apoptotic cells. These findings emphasize the complex and redundant nature of the macrophage death response to mycobacteria. 
 Title: Mycobacterium tuberculosis Lipoprotein (LpqH) Induces Macrophage Apoptosis through Extrinsic and Intrinsic Pathways: A Role for the Mitochondrial Apoptosis-Inducing Factor

A: True
****
Q: Paragraph: The envelope spike (S) proteins of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV determine the virus host tropism and entry into host cells, and constitute a promising target for the development of prophylactics and therapeutics. Here, we present high-resolution structures of the trimeric MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV S proteins in its pre-fusion conformation by single particle cryo-electron microscopy. The overall structures resemble that from other coronaviruses including HKU1, MHV and NL63 reported recently, with the exception of the receptor binding domain (RBD). We captured two states of the RBD with receptor binding region either buried (lying state) or exposed (standing state), demonstrating an inherently flexible RBD readily recognized by the receptor. Further sequence conservation analysis of six human-infecting coronaviruses revealed that the fusion peptide, HR1 region and the central helix are potential targets for eliciting broadly neutralizing antibodies. 
 Title: ARTICLE Cryo-EM structures of MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV spike glycoproteins reveal the dynamic receptor binding domains

A: False
****
Q: Paragraph: At the height of the SARS 1 crisis in spring 2003, the World Health Organization (WHO) and China fought a silent battle over the prevalence of two competing norms in global health governance. On the one hand, the established norm of sovereignty, particularly the principle of non-interference, had structured a regime for dealing with infectious disease outbreaks that provided ground rules of conduct but ascribed decision-making authority to member states alone. It explicitly ruled out foreign or supranational interference. On the other hand, the emerging norm of global health security was built on an understanding of infectious disease outbreaks as international security problems requiring supranational coordination and governance capacity. In effect, it implied the subordination of national economic and political interests to global disease detection and containment efforts. Its proponents thus sought a prominent role for the WHO in taking decisions in response to global health emergencies which would entail interference with state sovereignty. By the time of the SARS outbreak, this normative tension was far from being resolved. On the contrary, the two central actors in this episode, the Chinese government and the WHO secretariat, turned it into a manifest norm conflict by demonstrating incompatible positional differences over the relative priority of the two norms. 2 Intriguingly, however, neither China nor the WHO resorted to discursive modes of contestation by justifying their respective positions with reference to normative arguments. Almost exclusively, they displayed incompatible normative expectations in the way they put the norms into practice. The WHO acted as if the norm of global health security had already been widely accepted, supplanting those aspects of the sovereignty norm with which it conflicted. Without prior legal or political authorization to do so, the organization took a set of unprecedented measures. Most importantly, it issued travel warnings for affected regions, devised emergency recommendations, and put pressure on governments (the Chinese in particular) to comply-clearly challenging the non-interference 1 Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. 2 On the manifestation of norm conflicts, see Michael Zürn, Benjamin Faude and Christian Kreuder-Sonnen, Overlapping spheres of authority and interface conflicts in the global order: introducing a DFG research group, WZB 
 Title: China vs the WHO: a behavioural norm conflict in the SARS crisis

A:
False
****