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: This paper attempts to understand optimal ventilation rates at the national level across 26 European countries and to contrast the benefits of optimizing ventilation with filtration of outdoor air pollution and control of indoor sources. This is an important topic given the key role of the housing sector in tackling both air pollution and climate change. Although the methods used are relatively simplistic, they are appropriate for analyses performed at the scale presented in the paper. The findings and conclusions are well supported by the results. I would therefore support publication. However, I believe the manuscript would benefit from a stronger statement of the aims of the work and some clarifications regarding the methods (see below). My main concern relates to the assumption made by the authors that indoor-generated PM2.5 is equally as harmful to health as outdoor-generated PM2.5. There is little evidence to support this (though it is quite a commonly made assumption). I would like to see some form of sensitivity analysis in relation to this assumption, since it may have an impact on the final results (though probably not on the ultimate conclusions). More detailed comments can be found below. I consider the suggested revisions to be relatively minor. 1. Is the question posed original, important and well defined? The research question posed by the paper is important and I believe the methods used are appropriate to answer it. However, the aims of the paper are not currently well stated (in both the main text and in the abstract). The main statement of the aims comes towards the end of page 5, which states "This work aims to summarize the current understanding of the sources of health risks in indoor environments and their relationship to ventilation requirements". This doesn't really capture what the authors have actually done. There is a slightly better statement of the aims hidden in the Methods (top of page 7) but even this doesn't quite feel sufficient. 2. Are the data sound and well controlled? Yes, although the source of some of the input data can be made clearer in the text, especially in relation to Table 2 (see below) . 3. Is the interpretation (discussion and conclusion) well balanced and supported by the data? Yes. 4. Are the methods appropriate and well described, and are sufficient details provided to allow others to evaluate and/or replicate the work? The methods are generally well described. However, I have a few specific issues (see the additional comments below). The methods are based on relatively simplistic tools (both the mass-balance exposure model and the risk/health impact model). However, I think they are appropriate for the type of analysis presented in the paper. My main concern relates to the assumption of equal health risk associated with both outdoor-and indoor-generated PM2.5. The authors discuss this briefly in the Discussion section but this assumption is highly uncertain since almost all of the published epidemiology is based on outdoor PM2.5. The paper would benefit from greater emphasis on the sensitivity of the results to this assumption. Perhaps, the analysis (or part of it) could be repeated without the effects of indoorgenerated PM2.5 or with a reduced exposure-response coefficient? 6. Can the writing, organization, tables and figures be improved? Although the manuscript is generally well written, there are reoccurring problems, most importantly missing articles throughout the paper (e.g. a, the). For instance, in the abstract, "Based on measurements of the European Environment Agency (EEA),…" and "A framework for developing European health-based ventilation guidelines…" would be preferable. I realise that English is not the authors' first language (and, again, I should stress that most of the language used is very good). However, I think the paper would benefit from a thorough edit by a native English speaker. Also, the figures appear to be quite pixelated and may not be in an appropriate format for publication. 7. When revisions are requested. No preference. 8. Are there any ethical or competing interests issues you would like to raise? None. • I believe the abstract would benefit from a little editing. At present, the Background section feels unnecessarily long and there isn't enough detail in either the Methods or Results sections. The methods used for the health impact calculations aren't mentioned at all, despite being key to the paper. At the moment, I don't feel the main results are clearly stated in the abstract. • The paper refers throughout to "optimization". I think a mathematician might object to the use of the term because the method doesn't actually use a formal optimization process. I don't think this is too much of a problem but I do think a clear statement of what the authors mean by optimization would be helpful (e.g. in the Methods). As I understand it, the "optimal" ventilation rate is just taken to be the one for which the health burden is smallest.

Answer: Reducing burden of disease from residential indoor air exposures in Europe (HEALTHVENT project) Reducing burden of disease from residential indoor air exposures in Europe (HEALTHVENT project)


Question: Recently identified broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) show great potential for clinical interventions against HIV-1 infection. However, resistant strains may impose substantial challenges. Here, we report on the identification and characterization of a panel of HIV-1 strains with broad and potent resistance against a large number of bnAbs, particularly those targeting the CD4-binding site (CD4bs). Site-directed mutagenesis revealed that several key epitope mutations facilitate resistance and are located in the inner domain, loop D, and β23/loop V5/β24 of HIV-1 gp120. The resistance is largely correlated with binding affinity of antibodies to the envelope trimers expressed on the cell surface. Our results therefore demonstrate the existence of broadly resistant HIV-1 strains against CD4bs neutralizing antibodies. Treatment strategies based on the CD4bs bnAbs must overcome such resistance to achieve optimal clinical outcomes. Recently identified broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) show great potential for clinical interventions against HIV-1 infection. Among the bnAbs isolated to date, those targeting the CD4bs are the most abundant and thoroughly studied as they disrupt the crucial step of viral interaction with the cellular receptor molecule CD4. Despite the superior potency and breadth of these CD4bs bnAbs, each fails to neutralize a small but significant portion of pseudotyped virus panels. Here, we report on the identification and characterization of a panel of HIV-1 strains with broad and potent resistance against a large number of bnAbs, particularly those targeting the CD4bs. Resistance is largely attributed to mutated residues within the epitopes or steric hindrance imposed by the bulky side-chain or glycan shield of the mutated residues, and is largely correlated with reduced binding avidity of the antibody to the quaternary trimeric envelope protein expressed on the PLOS Pathogens | https://doi.surface of the transfected cells. Treatment strategies based on the CD4bs bnAbs therefore must overcome such resistance to achieve optimal clinical outcomes. Recent scientific advances have identified a growing number of broadly neutralizing antibodies (bnAbs) against human immunodeficiency virus type I (HIV-1), providing promising candidates for HIV-1 prevention and treatment [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] . Compared with bnAbs isolated in earlier studies, these bnAbs demonstrated broader and more potent activity against global HIV-1 panels and displayed impressive safety and efficacy profiles for therapeutic applications in a number of animal models and human clinical trials [1, [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] . These results also offer the opportunity to tailor these antibodies and maximize their prevention and treatment potential. Broadly speaking, these bnAbs recognize six major "vulnerable sites" on the HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein gp160 (gp120 and gp41), which are (1) the CD4-binding site (CD4bs), (2) the V1V2 apex, (3) the V3 glycan, (4) the fusion peptide (FP), (5) subunit interface and (6) membrane proximal external region (MPER) of gp41[1-5]. These bnAbs neutralize HIV-1 by blocking viral entry into the target cells, although additional effector functions are likely at play, particularly in the context of in vivo infection and clinical application[1, 12-16]. Among the bnAbs isolated to date, those targeting the CD4bs are the most abundant and thoroughly studied as they disrupt the first and crucial step of viral interaction with the cellular receptor CD4 [3, 4, 17, 18] . In this step, the trimeric envelope glycoprotein, composed of gp120 and gp41, binds with the target cell through the receptor CD4, with either CCR5 or CXCR4 as co-receptor [19] [20] [21] . This triggers a cascade of conformational changes that fuses the viral envelope with the target membrane and releases the viral genome into the cell [22, 23] .More than two dozen CD4bs bnAbs have been isolated to date. This number is likely to grow with the advent of more specific and high-throughput techniques for isolating antibodies.For instance, the prototype VRC01 and its close relative VRC03, which effectively neutralize a panel of diverse pseudotyped viruses,were isolated from a clade-B infected individual [24] [25] [26] . The more recently isolated CD4bs bnAbs, such as 3BNC117, N6, N49P7, 3BNC60, VRC-PG04, VRC-PG20, NIH45-46, VRC-CH31, 12A12, CH103, 8ANC131, VRC13, and VRC16, have shown similar or even enhanced potency and breadth compared with VRC01 [1-5, 27, 28].The CD4bs bnAbs are classified into two groups based on their mode of recognition and heavy chain characteristics, such as the VRC01 class(3BNC117, N6, N49P7, 3BNC60, VRC-PG04, VRC-PG20, NIH45-46, VRC-CH31 and 12A12) and non-VRC01 classes (CH103, 8ANC131, VRC13 and VRC16) [17, 18] . Structurally, these bnAbs recognize residues within the inner domain, the Loop D, the CD4 binding loop, and the β23/loop V5/β24 region [17, 18, [29] [30] [31] .The V1V2 and V3 loop also impact recognition,particularly in the context of the quaternary trimeric envelope protein [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] .The primary mechanism of neutralization mimics and competes with the CD4 receptorto bind HIV-1 gp120, thereby preventing bound trimers from transitioning to the subsequent steps required for membrane fusion, although evidence indicates that there are differences in the fine details of this process [17, 18, 35, 36] . Despite the superior potency and breadth of these CD4bs bnAbs, each fails to neutralize a small but significant portion of pseudotyped virus panels [17, 25, 27, 28, 37, 38].For instance, VRC01 is unable to neutralize about 10% of tested viruses [25] , and resistant strains have been isolated from patients infected with subtype B, subtype C, CRF07_BC, and CRF08_BC[29, [39] [40] [41] [42] . Furthermore, reports show thatVRC01-, 3BNC117-and N6-resistant strains have emerged in both animal models and human clinical trials [11, 15, [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] , indicating that resistant virus Broadly resistant HIV-1 against CD4bs antibodies PLOS Pathogens | https://doi.org/10.

Answer: Broadly resistant HIV-1 against CD4-binding site neutralizing antibodies


Question: The neuraminidase (NA) genes of A(H1N1)pdm09 influenza virus isolates from 306 infected patients were analysed. The circulation of oseltamivir-resistant viruses in Brazil has not been reported previously. Clinical samples were collected in the state of Rio Grande do Sul (RS) from 2009-2011 and two NA inhibitor-resistant mutants were identified, one in 2009 (H275Y) and the other in 2011 (S247N). This study revealed a low prevalence of resistant viruses (0.8%) with no spread of the resistant mutants throughout RS.

Answer:
Oseltamivir-resistant influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 virus in southern Brazil