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.

[Q]: publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active. An Pediatr (Barc). 2006;65(3):205-10 205 ORIGINALES Papel del rinovirus en las infecciones respiratorias en niños hospitalizados Antecedentes El rinovirus se considera un agente causal de cuadros catarrales banales, sin embargo se ha descrito como un agente inductor de exacerbaciones asmáticas en adultos y niños mayores. En nuestro medio no se ha descrito el papel del rinovirus en infecciones respiratorias de niños hospitalizados. Objetivos Describir las infecciones confirmadas por rinovirus en niños hospitalizados por infección respiratoria en un hospital de segundo nivel. We performed a prospective descriptive study in children admitted to hospital with fever or respiratory tract infection and with a positive isolation of rhinovirus in nasopharyngeal washings between September 2004 and July 2005. Virological diagnosis was made with direct immunofluorescent assay and/or reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction in specimens obtained from nasopha-Estudio parcialmente financiado por el Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias. FIS N.º 98/0310. Correspondencia: Dra. C. Calvo Rey. Viento, 5, 5.º A. 28760 Tres Cantos. Madrid. España. Correo electrónico: ccalvo@mi.madritel.es Recibido en noviembre de 2005. Aceptado para su publicación en marzo de 2006. Calvo Rey C, et al. Rinovirus en las infecciones respiratorias en niños hospitalizados 206 An Pediatr (Barc). 2006;65(3):205-10 ryngeal washings. The clinical characteristics of the patients were analyzed. There were 76 children with rhinovirus infection, representing 25 % of admissions in 304 children with fever or respiratory tract infection. Rhinovirus was the second most frequent viral agent identified after respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) (29.9 % of admissions). Fifty-four children (71.1 %) were under 2 years of age. The most frequent clinical diagnoses were recurrent wheezing in 60.5 %, bronchiolitis in 23.7 %, pneumonia in 7.9 %, and upper respiratory tract infection in 5.3 %. Fever > 38°C was present in 57.9 % of the patients and radiologic infiltrate was found in 23.7 %. Oxygen saturation less than 95 % was found in 43.4 % of the patients. Of 22 children aged more than 2 years, a diagnosis of asthmatic crisis was made in 21. Rhinoviruses were frequently identified in hospitalized children with respiratory tract disease and were the second most common viruses after RSV. In our series, it was the most frequent cause of recurrent wheezing in hospitalized children and the second most common cause in infants.
[A]: ROLE OF RHINOVIRUS IN RESPIRATORY TRACT INFECTIONS IN HOSPITALIZED CHILDREN Background


[Q]: 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.
[A]: 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)


[Q]: Herein, we show that domain-swapped oligomers of a thermostable c-type cytochrome, Hydrogenobacter thermophilus cyt c 552 , are formed in E. coli which expresses cyt c 552 . The region containing the N-terminal α-helix and heme was domain-swapped between protomers in the dimer formed in E. coli. The amount of cyt c 552 oligomers increased in E. coli as the cyt c 552 concentration was increased, whereas that of high-order oligomers decreased in the order of decrease in protein stability, indicating that domain swapping decreases in cells when the protein stability decreases. Apo cyt c 552 was detected in the cyt c 552 oligomer formed in E. coli, but not in that of the A5F/M11V/Y32F/Y41E/I76V mutant. The cyt c 552 oligomer containing its apo protein may form at the periplasm, since the apo protein detected by mass measurements did not contain the signal peptide. These results show that domain-swapped cyt c 552 oligomers were formed in E. coli, owing to the stability of the transient oligomer containing the apo protein before heme attachment. This is an indication that exceedingly stable proteins may have disadvantages forming domain-swapped oligomers in cells.
[A]:
Domain swapping oligomerization of thermostable c-type cytochrome in E. coli cells OPEN