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.

Input: Consider Input: Context: Frontotemporal dementia is a neurodegenerative disease affecting mostly the frontal and/or temporal lobes, with neuronal loss and intraneuronal and/or intraglial inclusions composed of hyperphosphorylated microtubule-associated protein tau and ubiquitin. Missense and splice site mutations in the TAU gene have been identified in approximately 15% of all frontotemporal dementia cases. In this study, we evaluated the involvement of mutations in the TAU gene in development of frontotemporal dementia phenotype in patients of French or English Canadian origins.', 'Fourteen patients with frontotemporal dementia phenotype and 98 normal controls were recruited for the study. The TAU gene was screened by sequencing and denaturing high performance liquid chromatography.', 'No mutations, except some new polymorphisms, were detected in the TAU gene of these patients. One polymorphism, however, may play a role in pathogenesis.
Answer: Our results agree with previous work suggesting that mutations in this gene are not a frequent cause of the frontotemporal dementia phenotype in Canadian patients.

Output: Are tAU mutations a predominant cause of frontotemporal dementia in Canadian patients?


Input: Consider Input: Context: Nociceptin/orphanin FQ (N/OFQ) receptor (NOP) agonists produce anxiolytic-like effects in rodents while antagonists promote antidepressant-like effects. The aim of this study was to investigate the effect on anxiety and depression of NOP receptor partial agonists such as the peptides [F/G]N/OFQ(1-13)NH2 and UFP-113 and the non-peptide AT-090.', 'In\xa0vitro AT-090, UFP-113, and [F/G]N/OFQ(1-13)NH2 were tested for their ability to promote NOP/G-protein and NOP/β-arrestin 2 interaction, using a bioluminescence resonance energy transfer assay. In\xa0vivo, they were tested in mice in the elevated plus maze (EPM) and in the forced swim (FST) tests. NOP partial agonists effects were systematically compared to those of full agonists (N/OFQ and Ro 65-6570) and antagonists (UFP-101 and SB-612111).', 'In\xa0vitro, AT-090, UFP-113, and [F/G]N/OFQ(1-13)NH2 promoted NOP/G protein interaction, with maximal effects lower than those evoked by N/OFQ and Ro 65-6570. AT-090 behaved as a NOP partial agonist also in inducing β-arrestin 2 recruitment, while UFP-113 and [F/G]N/OFQ(1-13)NH2 were inactive in this assay. In\xa0vivo, AT-090 induced anxiolytic-like effects in the EPM but was inactive in the FST. Opposite results were obtained with UFP-113 and [F/G]N/OFQ(1-13)NH2.
Answer: NOP ligands producing similar effects on NOP/G protein interaction (partial agonism) but showing different effects on β-arrestin 2 recruitment (partial agonism vs antagonism) elicited different actions on anxiety and mood. These results suggest that the action of a NOP ligand on emotional states is better predicted based on its β-arrestin 2 rather than G-protein efficacy.

Output: Does beta-arrestin 2 rather than G protein efficacy determine the anxiolytic-versus antidepressant-like effects of nociceptin/orphanin FQ receptor ligands?


Input: Consider Input: Context: Migraine is associated with epilepsy, but the time order and nature of the relationship are unclear. We conducted a population based case control study to clarify the time order to determine whether migraine is a risk factor for epilepsy.', 'Migraine symptoms were evaluated in a population-based case-control study of all incident epilepsy in Icelandic children and in matched controls (next two same sex births in the country).', 'Migraine was associated with a fourfold increased risk for developing epilepsy, an association explained by migraine with aura (odds ratio, 8.1; 95% confidence interval, 2.7-24.3). Migraine without aura did not increase risk for epilepsy.
Answer: Children with migraine with aura have a substantial increased risk to develop subsequent epilepsy. This finding is consistent with the hypothesis that migraine with aura and migraine without aura may be different disorders.


Output: Is migraine with aura a risk factor for unprovoked seizures in children?