TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Context: Kisspeptin and naloxone stimulate the reproductive axis while morphine inhibits its function. We have investigated the effect of central injection of kisspeptin-10 on mean plasma testosterone concentration in morphine or naloxone pretreated rats.', 'In this experimental study, 60 male Wistar rats that were divid- ed into 12 groups (n=5 per group) received saline, kisspeptin (1 nmol, ICV), naloxone (2 mg/kg, subcutaneously), morphine (5 or 10 mg/kg, sc) or co-administrations of kisspeptin, morphine and naloxone at 09:00 - 09:30. In the co-administrated groups, kisspeptin was injected 15 minutes following morphine or naloxone injections. Blood samples were collected 60 minutes following injections via the tail vein. Plasma testosterone concentration was measured by a rat testosterone ELISA kit.', 'Central injection of kisspeptin or subcutaneous injection of naloxone significantly increased the mean plasma testosterone concentration compared to saline while subcutaneous injections of different doses of morphine (5 or 10 mg/kg) significantly decreased testosterone compared to saline. The results revealed that morphine significantly attenuated the testosterone increase after kisspeptin injection compared to kisspeptin while a stimulatory additive effect was observed in the kisspeptin/naloxone group compared to either naloxone or kisspeptin.
Answer: Morphine and kisspeptin systems may interact with each other to control the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal (HPG) axis.

SOLUTION: Does morphine attenuate testosterone response to central injection of kisspeptin in male rats?

PROBLEM: Context: The objective of this study was to investigate the long-term effect of intraoperative application of steroid suspension and coating of the electrode contacts with a thin film of iridium oxide on the intracochlear impedance development after cochlear implantation and on the impedance difference before and after stimulation.', 'Time-dependent development of intracochlear impedances was investigated in 4 different groups of adult patients up to 4 years after implantation. Additionally, during rehabilitation period just after first fitting, impedances before and after stimulation were measured as to investigate the influence of electrical stimulation on the impedances. Results from standard Nucleus 24 Contour (control), standard Nucleus 24 Contour with intraoperative application of steroids, iridium-coated Nucleus 24 Contour, and iridium-coated Nucleus 24 Contour with intraoperative application of steroids were compared.', 'Steroid application reduced impedances significantly throughout the observation period of up to 4 years after implantation. Iridium oxide coating had no effect. Differences between the groups were mainly found on the basal and middle parts of the cochlea, but not close to the tip of the array, also indicating that postoperative fibrous tissue growth is stronger in the basal region of the cochlea. Group mean values of the stimulation effect were not influenced by the different treatments. Nevertheless, only in both steroid-treated groups a correlation between the impedance before stimulation and the stimulation effect was found.
Answer: Although the differences between control and steroid-treated groups decrease with time, single intraoperative intracochlear steroid deposition was proven to lower postoperative impedances during first 3 to 4 years after implantation probably because of reduction of fibrous tissue growth.

SOLUTION: Do the long-term effects of modified electrode surfaces and intracochlear corticosteroids on postoperative impedances in cochlear implant patients?

PROBLEM: Context: Activation of trypsinogen to trypsin is a crucial step in the development of acute pancreatitis. The cause of this activation is not known although suggested explanations include autoactivation, cathepsin B-mediated activation and activation by mast cell tryptase. The aim of this study was to investigate cathepsin B and tryptase activation of pancreatic zymogens.', 'Trypsinogen-1, proelastase, and procarboxypeptidase B were purified from human pancreatic juice. Human cathepsin B and betaI-tryptase are commercial products. Activation and degradation of zymogens were measured by activity towards specific substrates for trypsin and pancreatic elastase, ELISAs for procarboxypeptidase B and its activation peptide, and a radioimmunoassay for the trypsinogen activation peptide.', 'Cathepsin B caused activation of trypsinogen-1 with a trypsin yield of about 30% of that produced by enterokinase. Proelastase and procarboxypeptidase B was not activated by cathepsin B. None of the zymogens were inactivated by cathepsin B. Neither monomeric nor tetrameric tryptase could activate any of the examined zymogens.
Answer: Cathepsin B is a competent activator of trypsinogen-1, although not as efficient as enterokinase. If cathepsin B is to play a role in protease activation in acute pancreatitis, this most probably occurs by activation of trypsinogen.

SOLUTION:
Does cathepsin B activate human trypsinogen 1 but not proelastase 2 or procarboxypeptidase B?