instruction:
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:
After human coronaviruses OC43, 229E and NL63, human coronavirus HKU1 (HCoV-HKU1) is the fourth human coronavirus discovered. HCoV-HKU1 is a group 2a coronavirus that is still not cultivable. The G + C contents of HCoV-HKU1 genomes are 32%, the lowest among all known coronaviruses with complete genome sequences available. Among all coronaviruses, HCoV-HKU1 shows the most extreme codon usage bias, attributed most importantly to severe cytosine deamination. All HCoV-HKU1 genomes contain unique tandem copies of a 30-base acidic tandem repeat of unknown function at the N-terminus of nsp3 inside the acidic domain upstream of papain-like protease 1. Three genotypes, A, B and C, of HCoV-HKU1 and homologous recombination among their genomes, are observed. The incidence of HCoV-HKU1 infections is the highest in winter. Similar to other human coronaviruses, HCoV-HKU1 infections have been reported globally, with a median (range) incidence of 0.9 (0 -4.4) %. HCoV-HKU1 is associated with both upper and lower respiratory tract infections that are mostly selflimiting. The most common method for diagnosing HCoV-HKU1 infection is RT-PCR or real-time RT-PCR using RNA extracted from respiratory tract samples such as nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA). Both the pol and nucleocapsid genes have been used as the targets for amplification. Monoclonal antibodies have been generated for direct antigen detection in NPA. For antibody detection, Escherichia coli BL21 and baculovirus- Viruses 2009, 1 58 expressed recombinant nucleocapsid of HCoV-HKU1 have been used for IgG and IgM detection in sera of patients and normal individuals, using Western blot and enzyme-linked immunoassay.
answer:
More and More Coronaviruses: Human Coronavirus HKU1


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:
A systemic disease of domestic ferrets characterized by pyogranulomatous inflammation was first recognized in Europe and the United States in 2002. The disease closely resembled feline infectious peritonitis and subsequently has been shown to be associated with ferret systemic coronavirus (FRSCV). A definitive laboratory diagnosis of this disease is typically based on a combination of immunohistochemistry (IHC) and reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction tests to detect FRSCV in granulomatous lesions. In 2010, this feline infectious peritonitis-like disease was first identified in a laboratory ferret in Japan, and laboratory confirmation of the clinical diagnosis was limited to IHC. This report describes 2 cases of systemic coronavirus-associated disease in ferrets presented to Japanese veterinary hospitals. Both presented with pyogranulomatous inflammation in the abdominal cavity, and both cases tested positive for coronavirus antigen by IHC. In 1 case, for which unfixed tissues were available, FRSCV RNA was detected by reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction in the affected tissues.
answer:

AEMV FORUM TWO CASES OF SYSTEMIC CORONAVIRUS- ASSOCIATED DISEASE RESEMBLING FELINE INFECTIOUS PERITONITIS IN DOMESTIC FERRETS IN JAPAN