TASK DEFINITION: In this task, you're given a paragraph and title from the research paper. Your task is to classify whether the given title is suitable or not for the research paper based on the given paragraph. Return "True" if title is proper according to paragraph else "False".
PROBLEM: Paragraph: The M2 protein of influenza A is a proton-gated proton channel that is required for viral replication Current influenza strains are resistant to licensed M2 antivirals, so new therapies that target M2 are needed The structure and function of M2, rise of drug resistance mutations, and current antiviral strategies are discussed The ongoing threat of seasonal and pandemic influenza to human health requires antivirals that can effectively supplement existing vaccination strategies. The M2 protein of influenza A virus (IAV) is a proton-gated, proton-selective ion channel that is required for virus replication and is an established antiviral target. While licensed adamantane-based M2 antivirals have been historically used, M2 mutations that confer major adamantane resistance are now so prevalent in circulating virus strains that these drugs are no longer recommended. Here we review the current understanding of IAV M2 structure and function, mechanisms of inhibition, the rise of drug resistance mutations, and ongoing efforts to develop new antivirals that target resistant forms of M2.
Title: Journal Pre-proof Put a cork in it: Plugging the M2 viral ion channel to sink influenza Put a cork in it: Plugging the M2 viral ion channel to sink influenza

SOLUTION: False

PROBLEM: Paragraph: The genome of coronaviruses contains structural and non-structural genes, including several so-called accessory genes. All group 1b coronaviruses encode a single accessory protein between the spike and envelope genes, except for human coronavirus (HCoV) 229E. The prototype virus has a split gene, encoding the putative ORF4a and ORF4b proteins. To determine whether primary HCoV-229E isolates exhibit this unusual genome organization, we analyzed the ORF4a/b region of five current clinical isolates from The Netherlands and three early isolates collected at the Common Cold Unit (CCU) in Salisbury, UK. Results: All Dutch isolates were identical in the ORF4a/b region at amino acid level. All CCU isolates are only 98% identical to the Dutch isolates at the nucleotide level, but more closely related to the prototype HCoV-229E (>98%). Remarkably, our analyses revealed that the laboratory adapted, prototype HCoV-229E has a 2-nucleotide deletion in the ORF4a/b region, whereas all clinical isolates carry a single ORF, 660 nt in size, encoding a single protein of 219 amino acids, which is a homologue of the ORF3 proteins encoded by HCoV-NL63 and PEDV. Conclusion: Thus, the genome organization of the group 1b coronaviruses HCoV-NL63, PEDV and HCoV-229E is identical. It is possible that extensive culturing of the HCoV-229E laboratory strain resulted in truncation of ORF4. This may indicate that the protein is not essential in cell culture, but the highly conserved amino acid sequence of the ORF4 protein among clinical isolates suggests that the protein plays an important role in vivo.
Title: Virology Journal Human coronavirus 229E encodes a single ORF4 protein between the spike and the envelope genes

SOLUTION: False

PROBLEM: Paragraph: High-throughput screening (HTS) of large compound libraries has become a commonly used method for the identification of drug leads, and non-physiological reducing agents have been widely used for HTS. However, a comparison of the difference in the HTS results based on the choice of reducing agent used and potency comparisons of selected inhibitors has not been done with the physiological reducing agent, reduced glutathione (GSH). Here, we compared the effects of three reducing agents: dithiothreitol (DTT), -mercaptoethanol (-MCE), and tris-(2carboxyethyl)-phosphine (TCEP), in addition to GSH, against three drug target proteins. Approximately 100,000 compounds were computationally screened for each target protein, and experimental testing of high scoring compounds (~560 compounds) with the four reducing agents surprisingly produced many non-overlapping hits. More importantly, we find that various reducing agents alter inhibitor potency (IC 50 ) from ~10 M with one reducing agent to complete loss (IC 50 > 200 M) of inhibitory activity with another reducing agent. Therefore, the choice of reducing agent in a HTS is critical as this may lead to the pursuit of falsely identified active compounds or failure to identify the true active compounds. We demonstrate the feasibility of using GSH for in vitro HTS assays with these three target enzymes. Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Contributions H.L. performed all experiments with assistance of J.T. and L.T., R.C. performed computational selection of inhibitors for PLpro and NS3/4A, A.M. performed computational selection of inhibitors for 3CLpro, and H.L. and M.E.J. designed the experiments and wrote the manuscript.
Title: Reducing agents affect inhibitory activities of compounds: Results from Multiple Drug Targets

SOLUTION:
False