In this task, you are given an abstract of article. Your task is to generate title for this article. Preferred titles are under thirty words.

Input: Consider Input: Of all the age-related declines, memory loss is one of the most devastating. While conditions that increase longevity have been identified, the effects of these longevity-promoting factors on learning and memory are unknown. Here we show that the C. elegans Insulin/IGF-1 receptor mutant daf-2 improves memory performance early in adulthood and maintains learning ability better with age but, surprisingly, demonstrates no extension in long-term memory with age. By contrast, eat-2 mutants, a model of Dietary Restriction (DR), exhibit impaired long-term memory in young adulthood but maintain this level of memory longer with age. We find that crh-1, the C. elegans homolog of the CREB transcription factor, is required for long-term associative memory, but not for learning or short-term memory. The expression of crh-1 declines with age and differs in the longevity mutants, and CREB expression and activity correlate with memory performance. Our results suggest that specific longevity treatments have acute and long-term effects on cognitive functions that decline with age through their regulation of rate-limiting genes required for learning and memory.

Output: Insulin Signaling and Dietary Restriction Differentially Influence the Decline of Learning and Memory with Age

Input: Consider Input: Systematic literature reviews are widely used as an aid to evidence based decision making. For example, reviews of randomised controlled trials are regularly used to answer questions about the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. The high profile of systematic reviews as a cornerstone of evidence based medicine, however, has led to several misconceptions about their purpose and methods. Among these is the belief that systematic reviews are applicable only to randomised controlled trials and that they are incapable of dealing with other forms of evidence, such as from non-randomised studies or qualitative research. The systematic literature review is a method of locating, appraising, and synthesising evidence. The value of regularly updated systematic reviews in the assessment of effectiveness of healthcare interventions was dramatically illustrated by Antman and colleagues, who showed that review articles failed to mention advances in treatment identified by an updated systematic review.1 It is nearly a quarter of a century since Gene Glass coined the term "meta-analysis" to refer to the quantitative synthesis of the results of primary studies.2 The importance of making explicit efforts to limit bias in the review of literature, however, has been emphasised by social scientists at least since the 1960s.3 In recent years systematic reviews have found an important role in health services research, and the growing interest in evidence based approaches to decision making makes it likely that their use will increase. Not everybody accepts that systematic reviews are necessary or desirable, and as one moves further away from the clinical applications of systematic reviews cynicism about their utility grows. Several arguments are commonly used to reject a wider role for systematic reviews, and these arguments are often based on major misconceptions about the history, purpose, methods, and uses of systematic reviews. I have examined eight common myths about

Output: Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions.

Input: Consider Input: Basal-like breast cancers arising in women carrying mutations in the BRCA1 gene, encoding the tumor suppressor protein BRCA1, are thought to develop from the mammary stem cell. To explore early cellular changes that occur in BRCA1 mutation carriers, we have prospectively isolated distinct epithelial subpopulations from normal mammary tissue and preneoplastic specimens from individuals heterozygous for a BRCA1 mutation. We describe three epithelial subsets including basal stem/progenitor, luminal progenitor and mature luminal cells. Unexpectedly, we found that breast tissue from BRCA1 mutation carriers harbors an expanded luminal progenitor population that shows factor-independent growth in vitro. Moreover, gene expression profiling revealed that breast tissue heterozygous for a BRCA1 mutation and basal breast tumors were more similar to normal luminal progenitor cells than any other subset, including the stem cellenriched population. The c-KIT tyrosine kinase receptor (encoded by KIT) emerged as a key marker of luminal progenitor cells and was more highly expressed in BRCA1-associated preneoplastic tissue and tumors. Our findings suggest that an aberrant luminal progenitor population is a target for transformation in BRCA1-associated basal tumors .
Output: Aberrant luminal progenitors as the candidate target population for basal tumor development in BRCA1 mutation carriers