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.

[Q]: Monocytes are primary targets for human CMV (HCMV) infection and are proposed to be responsible for hematogenous dissemination of the virus. Monocytes acquire different functional traits during polarization to the classical proinflammatory M1 macrophage or the alternative antiinflammatory M2 macrophage. We hypothesized that HCMV induced a proinflammatory M1 macrophage following infection to promote viral dissemination because, biologically, a proinflammatory state provides the tools to drive infected monocytes from the blood into the tissue. To test this hypothesis of monocyte conversion from a normal quiescent phenotype to an inflammatory phenotype, we used Affymetrix Microarray to acquire a transcriptional profile of infected monocytes at a time point our data emphasized is a key temporal regulatory point following infection. We found that HCMV significantly up-regulated 583 (5.2%) of the total genes and down-regulated 621 (5.5%) of the total genes>or=1.5-fold at 4 h postinfection. Further ontology analysis revealed that genes implicated in classical M1 macrophage activation were stimulated by HCMV infection. We found that 65% of genes strictly associated with M1 polarization were up-regulated, while only 4% of genes solely associated with M2 polarization were up-regulated. Analysis of the monocyte chemokinome at the transcriptional level showed that 44% of M1 and 33% of M2 macrophage chemokines were up-regulated. Proteomic analysis using chemokine Ab arrays confirmed the secretion of these chemotactic proteins from HCMV-infected monocytes. Overall, the results identify that the HCMV-infected monocyte transcriptome displayed a unique M1/M2 polarization signature that was skewed toward the classical M1 activation phenotype.
[A]: Transcriptome analysis reveals human cytomegalovirus reprograms monocyte differentiation toward an M1 macrophage.

[Q]: Kidney donor exchanges enable recipients with immunologically incompatible donors to receive compatible living donor grafts; however, the financial management of these exchanges, especially when an organ is shipped, is complex and thus has the potential to impede the broader implementation of donor exchange programs. Representatives from transplant centers that utilize the National Kidney Registry database to facilitate donor exchange transplants developed a financial model applicable to paired donor exchanges and donor chain transplants. The first tenet of the model is to eliminate financial liability to the donor. Thereafter, it accounts for the donor evaluation, donor nephrectomy hospital costs, donor nephrectomy physician fees, organ transport, donor complications and recipient inpatient services. Billing between hospitals is based on Medicare cost report defined costs rather than charges. We believe that this model complies with current federal regulations and effectively captures costs of the donor and recipient services. It could be considered as a financial paradigm for the United Network for Organ Sharing managed donor exchange program.
[A]: Managing finances of shipping living donor kidneys for donor exchanges.

[Q]: Life forms that have low body mass can hunt for food on the undersurface of branches or along shear cliff faces quite unperturbed by gravity. For larger animals, the hunt for dinner and the struggle to avoid becoming someone else's meal require rapid movement against gravity. This need is met by the lever function of long bones, three-dimensional masterpieces of biomechanical engineering that, by their material composition and structural design, achieve the contradictory properties of stiffness and flexibility, strength and lightness.1 Material stiffness results from the encrusting of the triple-helical structure of collagen type I with hydroxyapatite crystals, which confers . . .
[A]:
Periosteal bone formation--a neglected determinant of bone strength.