In this task, you are given an abstract of article. Your task is to generate label "True" if abstract is structured, otherwise generate "False". A structured abstract is composed of a topic sentence (or key sentence), relevant supporting sentences, and a closing (or transition) sentence. This structure is key to keeping your abstract focused on the main idea and creating a clear and concise image.

Q: TGF-beta ligands stimulate diverse cellular differentiation and growth responses by signaling through type I and II receptors. Ligand antagonists, such as follistatin, block signaling and are essential regulators of physiological responses. Here we report the structure of activin A, a TGF-beta ligand, bound to the high-affinity antagonist follistatin. Two follistatin molecules encircle activin, neutralizing the ligand by burying one-third of its residues and its receptor binding sites. Previous studies have suggested that type I receptor binding would not be blocked by follistatin, but the crystal structure reveals that the follistatin N-terminal domain has an unexpected fold that mimics a universal type I receptor motif and occupies this receptor binding site. The formation of follistatin:BMP:type I receptor complexes can be explained by the stoichiometric and geometric arrangement of the activin:follistatin complex. The mode of ligand binding by follistatin has important implications for its ability to neutralize homo- and heterodimeric ligands of this growth factor family.

A: False
****
Q: OBJECTIVE Islet-reactive CD8(+) T-cells play a key role in the pathogenesis of type 1 diabetes in the NOD mouse. The predominant T-cell specificities change over time, but whether similar shifts also occur after clinical diagnosis and insulin treatment in type 1 diabetic patients is unknown. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS We took advantage of a recently validated islet-specific CD8(+) T-cell gamma-interferon enzyme-linked immunospot (ISL8Spot) assay to follow responses against preproinsulin (PPI), GAD, insulinoma-associated protein 2 (IA-2), and islet-specific glucose-6-phosphatase catalytic subunit-related protein (IGRP) epitopes in 15 HLA-A2(+) adult type 1 diabetic patients close to diagnosis and at a second time point 7-16 months later.
RESULTS CD8(+) T-cell reactivities were less frequent at follow-up, as 28.6% of responses tested positive at type 1 diabetes diagnosis vs. 13.2% after a median of 11 months (P = 0.003). While GAD and IA-2 autoantibody (aAb) titers were unchanged in 75% of cases, the fraction of patients responding to PPI and/or GAD epitopes by ISL8Spot decreased from 60-67 to 20% (P < 0.02). The previously subdominant IA-2(206-214) and IGRP(265-273) peptides were newly targeted, thus becoming the immunodominant epitopes.
CONCLUSIONS Shifts both in frequency and in immunodominance of CD8(+) T-cell responses occur more rapidly than do changes in aAb titers. These different kinetics may suggest complementary clinical applications for T-cell and aAb measurements.

A: True
****
Q: Both to address unmet medical needs and to improve industry competitiveness, regulators in both the United States and the European Union have taken bold steps to translate academic research from the university lab to the patient. A pharmaceutical public-private partnership (PPPP), which is a legally binding contract between a private pharmaceutical enterprise and a public research university (or a private university doing research funded with public funds), can be a significant tool to ensure a more efficient payoff in the highly regulated world of pharmaceuticals. In particular, a properly framed binding contract, coupled with respect for positive social norms, can move the parties away from an inefficient prisoners' dilemma Nash Equilibrium to the Pareto Optimal Frontier. When coupled with appropriate attention to the difficult task of coordinating the actions of interdependent actors, a PPPP arrangement can enhance the likelihood of successful commercialization by flipping the parties' incentives as compared with more traditional contracts. Because PPPPs are less common in Europe than in the United States, a key purpose of this article is to provide an annotated roadmap that universities, private firms, and EU policy makers can use to create efficient PPPPs to enhance for-profit innovation in the pharmaceutical industry in Europe. A secondary purpose is to suggest amendments to the U.S. laws governing the patenting of government-funded technology to prevent undue burdens on the sharing of certain upstream medical discoveries and research tools. Our analysis is not only comparative; it also combines, we believe for the first time, a game theory and law and management approach to for-profit PPPPs.

A:
False
****