instruction:
In this task, you are given a passage which has a question and the context. You have to generate an answer to the question based on the information present in the context.
question:
Context: Previous study in human subjects has documented biomechanical and neurophysiological responses to impulsive spinal manipulative thrusts, but very little is known about the neuromechanical effects of varying thrust force-time profiles.', 'Ten adolescent Merino sheep were anesthetized and posteroanterior mechanical thrusts were applied to the L3 spinous process using a computer-controlled, mechanical testing apparatus. Three variable pulse durations (10, 100, 200 ms, force = 80 N) and three variable force amplitudes (20, 40, 60 N, pulse duration = 100 ms) were examined for their effect on lumbar motion response (L3 displacement, L1, L2 acceleration) and normalized multifidus electromyographic response (L3, L4) using a repeated measures analysis of variance.', 'Increasing L3 posteroanterior force amplitude resulted in a fourfold linear increase in L3 posteroanterior vertebral displacement (p < 0.001) and adjacent segment (L1, L2) posteroanterior acceleration response (p < 0.001). L3 displacement was linearly correlated (p < 0.001) to the acceleration response over the 20-80 N force range (100 ms). At constant force, 10 ms thrusts resulted in nearly fivefold lower L3 displacements and significantly increased segmental (L2) acceleration responses compared to the 100 ms (19%, p = 0.005) and 200 ms (16%, p = 0.023) thrusts. Normalized electromyographic responses increased linearly with increasing force amplitude at higher amplitudes and were appreciably affected by mechanical excitation pulse duration.\Question: Do spinal manipulation force and duration affect vertebral movement and neuromuscular responses?
answer:
Changes in the biomechanical and neuromuscular response of the ovine lumbar spine were observed in response to changes in the force-time characteristics of the spinal manipulative thrusts and may be an underlying mechanism in related clinical outcomes.


question:
Context: Globally, heterosexual intercourse is the primary route of HIV-1 (HIV) transmission. It follows that mechanisms that protect against HIV infection are likely operative at the genital mucosa. In HIV-resistant Kenyan sex workers who are highly exposed to HIV infection yet remain uninfected, protection correlates with HIV-specific immune responses and genetic factors. However, these factors do not entirely explain this model of natural immunity to HIV. We hypothesized that protection may be mediated by innate immune proteins in the genital tract of HIV-resistant sex workers.', 'The genital proteome of mucosal secretions from HIV-resistant women was examined using surface-enhanced laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Cervical lavage samples were collected from 315 HIV-resistant, HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected commercial sex workers.', 'Univariate analysis identified a 6 kDa biomarker of HIV resistance in genital secretions from these women. This protein was identified by tandem mass spectrometry as elafin and was found to be overexpressed in HIV-resistant women compared with HIV-uninfected (P = 0.001) and infected (P = 0.002) women. The elevated levels of elafin/trappin-2 in HIV-resistant women were confirmed using ELISA. The prospective association of elevated cervicovaginal elafin/trappin-2 levels with protection from HIV acquisition was then confirmed in an independent cohort of high-risk female sex workers.\Question: Does elevated elafin/trappin-2 in the female genital tract is associate with protection against HIV acquisition?
answer:
Using a unique proteomics approach in a large scale, cross-sectional cohort study, we identified elafin/trappin-2 as a novel innate immune factor, which is highly associated with resistance. This association was confirmed within an independent, prospective cohort study. Genital tract elafin/trappin-2 levels constitute a natural correlate of HIV protection in humans.


question:
Context: This study tested the premise that immunoreactivity representing the p75 neurotrophin receptor (p75(NTR)) appears in plasma of diabetic rats in association with the early stages of neuronal dysfunction or damage. We also examined whether treatment beneficial to neuropathy might reduce the p75(NTR) immunoreactivity.', 'Plasma proteins were fractionated by SDS-PAGE and immunoblots exposed to p75(NTR) antibody, using receptor protein from cultured PC12 cells as an external standard. Rats were made diabetic with streptozotocin for various periods and exsanguinated. Plasma glucose, HbA(1)c and plasma proteins were determined. We also studied plasma samples from diabetic mice lacking the gene coding for p75(NTR), as well as the effect of sciatic nerve crush on healthy male Wistar rats.', 'Plasma p75(NTR) immunoreactivity began to exceed normal levels at 8 weeks after induction of diabetes, and was significantly raised at 10 (p<0.05) and 12 weeks (p<0.001). Treatment between 8 and 12 weeks with insulin, fidarestat (an aldose reductase inhibitor), nerve growth factor and neurotrophin 3 all normalised the plasma p75(NTR) immunoreactivity. Plasma from p75(NTR) (-/-) mice contained no such immunoreactivity, though it was present in plasma from wild-type mice. Following nerve crush, p75(NTR) immunoreactivity appeared in plasma of non-diabetic mice, indicating that this can be a result of nerve trauma.\Question: Does the p75 neurotrophin receptor appear in plasma in diabetic rats-characterisation of a potential early test for neuropathy?
answer:

These observations suggest that plasma p75(NTR) immunoreactivity may serve as an early indicator of neuronal dysfunction or damage in diabetes. The time course of its appearance relates well to that of early neuropathy and its response to interventions that are neuroprotective suggests that it might mirror neurological status.