Given a passage with a context and an answer, construct a question on the basis of the information present in the passage. Construct the question in such a way that (i) it is unambiguous, (ii) it is answerable from the passage, (iii) its answer is unique (iv) it answer uses text phrases from the passage. Avoid creating questions that (i) can't be answered correctly without actually understanding the passage and (ii) uses the same words or phrases given in the passage.

Example Input: Context: Rhinovirus (RV) infection in asthma induces varying degrees of airway inflammation (e.g. neutrophils), but the underlying mechanisms remain unclear.', 'The major goal was to determine the role of genetic variation [e.g. single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)] of Toll-interacting protein (Tollip) in airway epithelial responses to RV in a type 2 cytokine milieu.', 'DNA from blood of asthmatic and normal subjects was genotyped for Tollip SNP rs5743899 AA, AG and GG genotypes. Human tracheobronchial epithelial (HTBE) cells from donors without lung disease were cultured to determine pro-inflammatory and antiviral responses to IL-13 and RV16. Tollip knockout and wild-type mice were challenged with house dust mite (HDM) and infected with RV1B to determine lung inflammation and antiviral response.', 'Asthmatic subjects carrying the AG or GG genotype (AG/GG) compared with the AA genotype demonstrated greater airflow limitation. HTBE cells with AG/GG expressed less Tollip. Upon IL-13 and RV16 treatment, cells with AG/GG (vs. AA) produced more IL-8 and expressed less antiviral genes, which was coupled with increased NF-κB activity and decreased expression of LC3, a hallmark of the autophagic pathway. Tollip co-localized and interacted with LC3. Inhibition of autophagy decreased antiviral genes in IL-13- and RV16-treated cells. Upon HDM and RV1B, Tollip knockout (vs. wild-type) mice demonstrated higher levels of lung neutrophilic inflammation and viral load, but lower levels of antiviral gene expression.
Answer: Our data suggest that Tollip SNP rs5743899 may predict varying airway response to RV infection in asthma.
Example Output: Does tollip SNP rs5743899 modulate human airway epithelial responses to rhinovirus infection?

Example Input: Context: Dentofacial deformities are dys-morpho-functional disorders involving the temporomandibular joints (TMJ). Many authors have reported a TMJ improvement in dysfunctional subjects with malocclusion after orthodontic or combined orthodontic and surgical treatment particularly for the relief of pain. In particular, few studies have highlighted the demographic and clinical predictors of response to surgical treatment. To date, no genetic factor has yet been identified as a predictor of response to surgical treatment. The aim of this cohort study is therefore to identify single-nucleotide polymorphisms associated with postoperative temporomandibular disorders (TMD) or with TMJ symptoms after orthognathic surgery. Here, we found the AA genotype of SNP rs1643821 (ESR1 gene) as a risk factor for dysfunctional worsening after orthognathic surgery. In addition, we have identified TT genotype of SNP rs858339 (ENPP1 gene) as a protective factor against TMD in a population of patients with dentofacial deformities. Conversely, the heterozygous genotype AT was identified as a risk factor of TMD with respect to the rest of our population. All these elements are particularly important to bring new screening strategies and tailor future treatment.
Answer: This study allows us to identify sub-populations at high risk of developing postoperative temporomandibular disorders after orthognathic surgery procedures. Many other genes of interest could be potential factors influencing the dysfunctional response to orthognathic surgery, particularly genes of the Opera cohort.
Example Output: Do eNPP1 and ESR1 genotypes influence temporomandibular disorders development and surgical treatment response in dentofacial deformities?

Example Input: Context: Although the "right not to know" is well established in international regulations, it has been heavily debated. Ubiquitous results from extended exome and genome analysis have challenged the right not to know. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Recommendations urge to inform about incidental findings that pretend to be accurate and actionable. However, ample clinical cases raise the question whether these criteria are met. Many incidental findings are of uncertain significance (IFUS). The eager to feedback information appears to enter the field of IFUS and thereby threaten the right not to know. This makes it imperative to investigate the arguments for and against a right not to know for IFUS.
Answer: This article investigates how the various arguments for and against a right not to know hold for IFUS. The main investigated arguments are: hypothetical utilitarianism, the right-based argument, the feasibility argument, the value of knowledge argument, the argument from lost significance, the empirical argument, the duty to disclose argument, the avoiding harm argument; the argument from principle, from autonomy, from privacy, as well as the argument from the right to an open future. The analysis shows that both sides in the debate have exaggerated the importance of incidental findings. Opponents of a right not to know have exaggerated the importance of IFUS, while proponents have exaggerated the need to be protected from something that is not knowledge. Hence, to know or not to know is not the question. The question is whether we should be able to stay ignorant of incidental findings of uncertain significance, if we want to. The answer is yes: As long as the information is not accurate and/or actionable: ignorance is bliss. When answering questions that are not asked, we need to think twice.
Example Output:
Is incidental findings of uncertain significance : To know or not to know -- that the question?