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.

Input: Consider Input: Non-polio enteroviruses are emerging viruses known to cause outbreaks of polio-like infections in different parts of the world with several cases already reported in Asia Pacific, Europe and in United States of America. These outbreaks normally result in overstretching of health facilities as well as death in children under the age of five. Most of these infections are usually self-limiting except for the neurological complications associated with human enterovirus A 71 (EV-A71). The infection dynamics of these viruses have not been fully understood, with most inferences made from previous studies conducted with poliovirus. Non-poliovirus enteroviral infections are responsible for major outbreaks of hand, foot and mouth disease (HFMD) often associated with neurological complications and severe respiratory diseases. The myriad of disease presentations observed so far in children calls for an urgent need to fully elucidate the replication processes of these viruses. There are concerted efforts from different research groups to fully map out the role of human host factors in the replication cycle of these viral infections. Understanding the interaction between viral proteins and human host factors will unravel important insights on the lifecycle of this groups of viruses. This review provides the latest update on the interplay between human host factors/processes and non-polio enteroviruses (NPEV). We focus on the interactions involved in viral attachment, entry, internalization, uncoating, replication, virion assembly and eventual egress of the NPEV from the infected cells. We emphasize on the virus-human host interplay and highlight existing knowledge gaps that needs further studies. Understanding the NPEV-human host factors interactions will be key in the design and development of vaccines as well as antivirals against enteroviral infections. Dissecting the role of human host factors during NPEV infection cycle will provide a clear picture of how NPEVs usurp the human cellular processes to establish an efficient infection. This will be a boost to the drug and vaccine development against enteroviruses which will be key in control and eventual elimination of the viral infections.

Output: Recent advances on the role of host factors during non-poliovirus enteroviral infections

Input: Consider Input: Main point: Hydroxychloroquine was found to be more potent than chloroquine at inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. Hydroxychloroquine sulfate 400 mg given twice daily for 1 day, followed by 200 mg twice daily for 4 more days is recommended to treat SARS-CoV-2 infection. Abstract Background. The Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) first broke out in Wuhan (China) and subsequently spread worldwide. Chloroquine has been sporadically used in treating SARS-CoV-2 infection. Hydroxychloroquine shares the same mechanism of action as chloroquine, but its more tolerable safety profile makes it the preferred drug to treat malaria and autoimmune conditions. We propose that the immunomodulatory effect of hydroxychloroquine also may be useful in controlling the cytokine storm that occurs late-phase in critically ill SARS-CoV-2 infected patients. Currently, there is no evidence to support the use of hydroxychloroquine in SARS-CoV-2 infection. Methods. The pharmacological activity of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine was tested using SARS-CoV-2 infected Vero cells. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models (PBPK) were implemented for both drugs separately by integrating their in vitro data. Using the PBPK models, hydroxychloroquine concentrations in lung fluid were simulated under 5 different dosing regimens to explore the most effective regimen whilst considering the drug's safety profile. Results. Hydroxychloroquine (EC50=0.72 M) was found to be more potent than chloroquine (EC50=5.47 M) in vitro. Based on PBPK models results, a loading dose of 400 mg twice daily of hydroxychloroquine sulfate given orally, followed by a maintenance dose of 200 mg given twice daily for 4 days is recommended for SARS-CoV-2 infection, as it reached three times the potency of chloroquine phosphate when given 500 mg twice daily 5 days in advance. Hydroxychloroquine was found to be more potent than chloroquine to 4 / 25 inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in vitro.

Output: In Vitro Antiviral Activity and Projection of Optimized Dosing Design of Hydroxychloroquine for the Treatment of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)

Input: Consider Input: We evaluated Qiagen EZ1 (Valencia, CA) and bioMerieux (Durham, NC) easyMAG extractors compared with Qiagen manual extraction using targets and matrices commonly available in the clinical laboratory. Pooled samples were spiked with various organisms, serially diluted, and extracted in duplicate. The organisms/matrices were Bordetella pertussis/bronchoalveolar lavage, herpes simplex virus II/cerebrospinal fluid, coxsackievirus A9/cerebrospinal fluid, BK virus/plasma, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae/endotracheal tube samples. Extracts were amplified in duplicate using realtime PCR assays, and amplification of the target at a cycle threshold of 35 using the manual method was used for comparison. Amplification efficiency of nucleic acids extracted by automated methods was similar to that by the manual method except for a loss of efficiency for M. pneumoniae in endotracheal tube samples. The EZ1 viral kit 2.0 gave better results for coxsackievirus A9 than the EZ1 viral kit version 1.0. At the lowest limit of detection (past a cycle threshold of 35), the easyMAG was more likely to produce amplifiable nucleic acid than were either the EZ1 or manual extraction. Operational complexity, defined as the number of manipulations required to obtain an extracted sample, was the lowest for the easyMAG. The easyMAG was the most expensive of the methods, followed by the EZ1 kit and manual extraction
Output: Comparison of Automated Nucleic Acid Extraction Methods with Manual Extraction