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".
--------
Question: Paragraph: A major limitation for better understanding the role of the human gut virome in health and disease is the lack of validated methods that allow high throughput virome analysis. To overcome this, we evaluated the quantitative effect of homogenisation, centrifugation, filtration, chloroform treatment and random amplification on a mock-virome (containing nine highly diverse viruses) and a bacterial mock-community (containing four faecal bacterial species) using quantitative PCR and next-generation sequencing. This resulted in an optimised protocol that was able to recover all viruses present in the mock-virome and strongly alters the ratio of viral versus bacterial and 16S rRNA genetic material in favour of viruses (from 43.2% to 96.7% viral reads and from 47.6% to 0.19% bacterial reads). Furthermore, our study indicated that most of the currently used virome protocols, using small filter pores and/or stringent centrifugation conditions may have largely overlooked large viruses present in viromes. We propose NetoVIR (Novel enrichment technique of VIRomes), which allows for a fast, reproducible and high throughput sample preparation for viral metagenomics studies, introducing minimal bias. This procedure is optimised mainly for faecal samples, but with appropriate concentration steps can also be used for other sample types with lower initial viral loads.
Title: Modular approach to customise sample preparation procedures for viral metagenomics: a reproducible protocol for virome analysis

Answer: False

Question: Paragraph: Rational design of proteins with novel binding specificities and increased affinity is one of the major goals of computational protein design. Epitope-scaffolds are a new class of antigens engineered by transplanting viral epitopes of pre-defined structure to protein scaffolds, or by building protein scaffolds around such epitopes. Epitope-scaffolds are of interest as vaccine components to attempt to elicit neutralizing antibodies targeting the specified epitope. In this study we developed a new computational protocol, MultiGraft Interface, that transplants epitopes but also designs additional scaffold features outside the epitope to enhance antibody-binding specificity and potentially influence the specificity of elicited antibodies. We employed MultiGraft Interface to engineer novel epitope-scaffolds that display the known epitope of HIV-1 neutralizing antibody 2F5 and that also interact with the functionally important CDR H3 antibody loop. MultiGraft Interface generated an epitope-scaffold that bound 2F5 with sub-nanomolar affinity (K D = 400 pM) and that interacted with the antibody CDR H3 loop through computationally designed contacts. Substantial structural modifications were necessary to engineer this antigen, with the 2F5 epitope replacing a helix in the native scaffold and with 15% of the native scaffold sequence being modified in the design stage. This epitope-scaffold represents a successful example of rational protein backbone engineering and protein-protein interface design and could prove useful in the field of HIV vaccine design. MultiGraft Interface can be generally applied to engineer novel binding partners with altered specificity and optimized affinity.
Title: Computational design of protein antigens that interact with the CDR H3 loop of HIV broadly neutralizing antibody 2F5 HHS Public Access

Answer: False

Question: Paragraph: Background: A broad spectrum of pathogens is causative for respiratory tract infections, but symptoms are mostly similar. Therefore, the identification of the causative viruses and bacteria is only feasible using multiplex PCR or several monoplex PCR tests in parallel. Methods: The analytical sensitivity of three multiplex PCR assays, RespiFinder-19, RespiFinder-SMART-22 and xTAG-Respiratory-Virus-Panel-Fast-Assay (RVP), were compared to monoplex real-time PCR with quantified standardized control material. All assays include the most common respiratory pathogens. Results: To compare the analytical sensitivity of the multiplex assays, samples were inoculated with 13 different quantified viruses in the range of 10 1 to 10 5 copies/ml. Concordant results were received for rhinovirus, whereas the RVP detected influenzavirus, RSV and hMPV more frequently in low concentrations. The RespiFinder-19 and the RespiFinder-SMART-22 showed a higher analytical sensitivity for adenoviruses and coronaviruses, whereas the RVP was incapable to detect adenovirus and coronavirus in concentrations of 10 4 copies/ml. The RespiFinder-19 and RespiFinder-SMART-22A did not detect influenzaviruses (10 4 copies/ml) and RSV (10 3 copies/ml). The detection of all 13 viruses in one sample was only achieved using monoplex PCR. To analyze possible competitive amplification reactions between the different viruses, samples were further inoculated with only 4 different viruses in one sample. Compared to the detection of 13 viruses in parallel, only a few differences were found. The incidence of respiratory viruses was compared in tracheal secretion (TS) samples (n = 100) of mechanically ventilated patients in winter (n = 50) and summer (n = 50). In winter, respiratory viruses were detected in 32 TS samples (64%) by RespiFinder-19, whereas the detection rate with RVP was only 22%. The most frequent viruses were adenovirus (32%) and PIV-2 (20%). Multiple infections were detected in 16 TS samples (32%) by RespiFinder-19. Fewer infections were found in summer (RespiFinder-19: 20%; RVP: 6%). All positive results were verified using monoplex PCR. Conclusions: Multiplex PCR tests have a broad spectrum of pathogens to test at a time. Analysis of multiple inoculated samples revealed a different focus of the detected virus types by the three assays. Analysis of clinical samples showed a high concordance of detected viruses by the RespiFinder-19 compared to monoplex tests.
Title: Comparison of three multiplex PCR assays for the detection of respiratory viral infections: evaluation of xTAG respiratory virus panel fast assay, RespiFinder 19 assay and RespiFinder SMART 22 assay

Answer:
False