In this task, you are given a abstract of article and corresponding title of an article. Your task is to generate label "yes" if title is right for article, otherwise generate "no".
--------
Question: Abstract: Cellular circular RNAs (circRNAs) are generated by head-to-tail splicing and are present in all multicellular organisms studied so far. Recently, circRNAs have emerged as a large class of RNA which can function as post-transcriptional regulators. It has also been shown that many circRNAs are tissue- and stage-specifically expressed. Moreover, the unusual stability and expression specificity make circRNAs important candidates for clinical biomarker research. Here, we present a circRNA expression resource of 20 human tissues highly relevant to disease-related research: vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs), human umbilical vein cells (HUVECs), artery endothelial cells (HUAECs), atrium, vena cava, neutrophils, platelets, cerebral cortex, placenta, and samples from mesenchymal stem cell differentiation. In eight different samples from a single donor, we found highly tissue-specific circRNA expression. Circular-to-linear RNA ratios revealed that many circRNAs were expressed higher than their linear host transcripts. Among the 71 validated circRNAs, we noticed potential biomarkers. In adenosine deaminase-deficient, severe combined immunodeficiency (ADA-SCID) patients and in Wiskott-Aldrich-Syndrome (WAS) patients' samples, we found evidence for differential circRNA expression of genes that are involved in the molecular pathogenesis of both phenotypes. Our findings underscore the need to assess circRNAs in mechanisms of human disease. KEY MESSAGES: circRNA resource catalog of 20 clinically relevant tissues. circRNA expression is highly tissue-specific. circRNA transcripts are often more abundant than their linear host RNAs. circRNAs can be differentially expressed in disease-associated genes.. Title: A map of human circular RNAs in clinically relevant tissues

Answer: yes

Question: Abstract: We have identified and characterized the gene for a novel zinc finger transcription factor which we have termed lung Kruppel-like factor (LKLF). LKLF was isolated through the use of the zinc finger domain of erythroid Kruppel-like factor (ELKF) as a hybridization probe and is closely related to this erythroid cell-specific gene. LKLF is expressed in a limited number of tissues, with the predominant expression seen in the lungs and spleen. The gene is developmentally controlled, with expression noted in the 7-day embryo followed by a down-regulation at 11 days and subsequent reactivation. A high degree of similarity is noted in the zinc finger regions of LKLF and EKLF. Beyond this domain, the sequences diverge significantly, although the putative transactivation domains for both LKLF and EKLF are proline-rich regions. In the DNA-binding domain, the three zinc finger motifs are so closely conserved that the predicted DNA contact sites are identical, suggesting that both proteins may bind to the same core sequence. This was further suggested by transactivation assays in which mouse fibroblasts were transiently transfected with a human beta-globin reporter gene in the absence and presence of an LKLF cDNA construct. Expression of the LKLF gene activates this human beta-globin promoter containing the CACCC sequence previously shown to be a binding site for EKLF. Mutation of this potential binding site results in a significant reduction in the reporter gene expression. LKLF and EKLF can thus be grouped as members of a unique family of transcription factors which have discrete patterns of expression in different tissues and which appear to recognize the same DNA-binding site.. Title: Isolation of a gene encoding a functional zinc finger protein homologous to erythroid Kruppel-like factor: identification of a new multigene family.

Answer: yes

Question: Abstract: OBJECTIVE To determine the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of using information from circulating biomarkers to inform the prioritisation process of patients with stable angina awaiting coronary artery bypass graft surgery.
DESIGN Decision analytical model comparing four prioritisation strategies without biomarkers (no formal prioritisation, two urgency scores, and a risk score) and three strategies based on a risk score using biomarkers: a routinely assessed biomarker (estimated glomerular filtration rate), a novel biomarker (C reactive protein), or both. The order in which to perform coronary artery bypass grafting in a cohort of patients was determined by each prioritisation strategy, and mean lifetime costs and quality adjusted life years (QALYs) were compared.
DATA SOURCES Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry (9935 patients with stable angina awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting and then followed up for cardiovascular events after the procedure for 3.8 years), and meta-analyses of prognostic effects (relative risks) of biomarkers.
RESULTS The observed risk of cardiovascular events while on the waiting list for coronary artery bypass grafting was 3 per 10,000 patients per day within the first 90 days (184 events in 9935 patients). Using a cost effectiveness threshold of pound20,000- pound30,000 (euro22,000-euro33,000; $32,000-$48,000) per additional QALY, a prioritisation strategy using a risk score with estimated glomerular filtration rate was the most cost effective strategy (cost per additional QALY was < pound410 compared with the Ontario urgency score). The impact on population health of implementing this strategy was 800 QALYs per 100,000 patients at an additional cost of pound 245,000 to the National Health Service. The prioritisation strategy using a risk score with C reactive protein was associated with lower QALYs and higher costs compared with a risk score using estimated glomerular filtration rate.
CONCLUSION Evaluating the cost effectiveness of prognostic biomarkers is important even when effects at an individual level are small. Formal prioritisation of patients awaiting coronary artery bypass grafting using a routinely assessed biomarker (estimated glomerular filtration rate) along with simple, routinely collected clinical information was cost effective. Prioritisation strategies based on the prognostic information conferred by C reactive protein, which is not currently measured in this context, or a combination of C reactive protein and estimated glomerular filtration rate, is unlikely to be cost effective. The widespread practice of using only implicit or informal means of clinically ordering the waiting list may be harmful and should be replaced with formal prioritisation approaches.. Title: Assessing the cost effectiveness of using prognostic biomarkers with decision models: case study in prioritising patients waiting for coronary artery surgery

Answer:
yes