In this task, you are given a paragraph (from a research paper) and your task is to classify each sentence of the paragraph (assume n sentence) into the following categories: Background, Purpose, Method, Finding/Contribution, or Other. Return the output in this format: 1 - category of sentence 1, 2 - category of sentence 2, ..., n - category of sentence n; where each number indicates the order of the sentence. The categories can be identified using the following questions: 
 Background: - Why is this problem important? - What relevant works have been done before? - What did the previous works miss? - What are the high-level research questions? - How might this help other researchers?
 Purpose: - What specific things do the researchers want to do? - What specific knowledge do the researchers want to know? - What specific hypothesis do the researchers want to test?
 Method: - How did the researchers do it or find it out? - What are the procedures and steps of this research?
 Finding/Contribution: - What did the researchers find out? Did the proposed methods work? - Did things behave as the researchers expected?
Other: put every text fragment that does not fit into any of the categories above here. Put a sentence here if its not in English, is not part of the article, contains numbers and dates, is a caption of a figure or a table, is a formatting error, or you are not sure about it.

Q: Porcine aminopeptidase N (pAPN) is a cellular membrane protein and a functional receptor for porcine coronaviruses. Here, we describe the heterologous expression of pAPN without signal peptide in BL21(DE3)pLysS host cells. The Escherichia coli (E. coli) harboring the recombinant construct was efficiently induced to express the pAPN protein at a high level. The most optimal expression profile for pAPN expression was investigated. By inoculating a rabbit with the purified pAPN, a high tittered specific antibody was achieved. Biologically, the antibody reacted with either pAPN-expressing E. coli or native pAPN on the surface of swine testis cells. The pAPN and its specific antibody blocked transmissible gastroenteritis coronavirus infection in vitro. Furthermore, the localization of pAPN on the small intestine of swine was analyzed by immunohistochemistry.

A: 1 - background, 2 - purpose, 3 - method, 4 - finding, 5 - finding, 6 - finding, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding
****
Q: A total of 123 community paediatricians and 23 microbiology laboratories studied the clinical and bacteriological efficacy of treatment of group A streptococcal pharyngitis in Italy. Of 1065 patients, from whom Streptococcus pyogenes was isolated, 723 returned to follow up and of these 138 (19%) still had a positive throat culture. The erythromycin resistance (ER) rate was 23.7% with resistance phenotype distribution of: 31.7% constitutive (CR), 26.6% inducible (IR) and 41.7% efflux pump (M) resistance phenotype. All strains were susceptible to the b-lactam agents tested. CR strains were highly resistant to all 14, 15 and 16 membered macrolides with the exception of rokitamycin which showed activity against 37.8% of isolates. All phenotype M and some IR isolates were susceptible to clindamycin, rokitamycin, josamycin and spiramycin; clarithromycin was active against a small percentage of strains belonging to the IR and M phenotype. Bacterial eradication was found in 85.5, 78.7 and 75.8% of the penicillin, macrolide and cephalosporin treated groups. Genotyping of strains showed that 8.7% of the 19% of cases classified as 'failed bacterial eradication' were due to recolonization with a different isolate, observed exclusively among b-lactams treated patients. Clinical cure was achieved in a high percentage of cases, irrespective of the antibiotic prescribed, with the best clinical efficacy being found following therapy with amoxycillin and clarithromycin (90.9%).

A: 1 - method, 2 - method, 3 - method, 4 - finding, 5 - finding, 6 - finding, 7 - finding, 8 - finding, 9 - finding, 10 - finding, 11 - finding, 12 - finding, 13 - finding, 14 - finding, 15 - finding, 16 - finding, 17 - finding, 18 - finding
****
Q: Although the provincial supplementary immunization activities (SIAs) conducted in 2009 and 2010 were able to reduce the transmissions from 2009 to 2011, larger values of R for children aged 0-6 years were observed after 2012, indicating that the benefits of the SIAs were short-lived. In addition, the transmissions from adults aged between 26 and 45 years PLOS ONE.

A:
1 - finding, 2 - finding, 3 - finding, 4 - finding
****
