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: Platelets are a natural source of growth factors, cytokines and chemokines, that regulate angiogenesis and inflammation. It has been suggested that differential release of pro- and anti-angiogenic growth factors from platelet α-granules by protease-activated receptors (PAR) 1 and 4 may be important for the regulation of angiogenesis. We aimed to compare the releasates of unstimulated platelets with PAR-1- and PAR-4-stimulated platelets.', "The release of β-thromboglobulin, platelet factor (PF)-4, thrombospondin, platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)-A/B, regulated and normal T-cell expressed and secreted (RANTES/CCL5), endostatin, CXCL12, and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) was measured with enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Mass spectrometry (MS)-based quantitative proteomics identified 93 proteins from platelets stimulated with PAR-1 and PAR-4. A strong correlation between the factors released after either stimulus was observed (Spearman's r 0.94, P < 0.001). Analysis with ELISA showed that stimulation with PAR-1 or PAR-4 lead to non-differential release of β-thromboglobulin, PF-4, thrombospondin, PDGF-A/B, RANTES/CCL5, endostatin, CXCL12, and VEGF. Release of thrombospondin was slightly lower after PAR-1 stimulation (7.2 μg/mL), compared with PAR-4 induced release (9.8 μg/mL; P < 0.05).\Question: Does quantitative proteomics analysis reveal similar release profiles following specific PAR-1 or PAR-4 stimulation of platelets?
answer:
Both ELISA on established α-granule proteins and MS-based quantitative proteomics showed that the most abundant α-granule proteins are released in similar quantities from platelets after stimulation with either PAR-1 or PAR-4. Our findings provide evidence against the hypothesis that PAR-1 and PAR-4 stimulation of platelets trigger differential release of alpha-granule, but further studies are needed to draw conclusions for physiological conditions.


question:
Context: Previous follow-up studies indicate that increased visual cortical, ventral cingulate and subcortical responses of depressed individuals to sad facial stimuli, but not happy stimuli could represent reversible markers of disease severity. We hypothesized that greater responses in these areas to sad stimuli, but not happy stimuli, would predict better subsequent clinical outcome. We also explored areas that would predict a poor outcome.', 'Twelve melancholically depressed individuals in the early stages of antidepressant treatment in a secondary care setting participated in two experiments comparing responses to varying intensities of sad and happy facial stimuli, respectively, using event related functional MRI. They repeated the experiments after a mean delay of 12 weeks of treatment.', 'There was a variation in response to treatment. Greater right visual cortex and right subgenual cingulate (R-BA25) responses to sad stimuli, but not happy stimuli, in the early stages of treatment were associated with a good clinical outcome. Greater ventrolateral prefrontal cortex responses to either stimulus type were associated with a relatively poor outcome.\Question: Do subgenual cingulate and visual cortex responses to sad faces predict clinical outcome during antidepressant treatment for depression?
answer:
The sample size was modest and patients were taking a variety of antidepressants.


question:
Context: The human endometrium is an important site for contact between the host and pathogens ascending the reproductive tract, and thus plays an important role in female reproductive tract immunity. Previous work in our laboratory has suggested that Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are involved in endometrial epithelial recognition of pathogens and that ligation of endometrial TLRs results in the production of cytokines and chemokines important for both immune and reproductive functions of the endometrium. We have also demonstrated cyclic regulation of TLR3 mRNA and protein expression in human endometrium, suggesting that steroid hormones might play a role in the expression and function of TLR3. In this study, the effects of 17beta-estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P) on TLR3 expression and function in endometrial cell lines were investigated.', 'Endometrial epithelial cell lines were cultured and examined for the presence of TLR3 and hormone receptors by endpoint RT-PCR. For hormonal studies, cells were pre-treated with ethanol vehicle, 10(-8) M E2, and/or 10(-7) M P. For antagonist assays, cells were treated with the ER antagonist, ICI 182, 780, or the PR antagonist, RU486, for two hours prior to treatment with hormones. Following hormone or hormone/antagonist pre-treatment, cells were stimulated with vehicle, the synthetic TLR3 ligand, polyinosinic-polycytidylic acid (Poly I:C), a negative dsDNA control, or a positive control. Cytokine and chemokine production post-stimulation was measured by ELISA. The effects of E2 and P on TLR3 mRNA and protein expression were measured using Real Time RT-PCR and FACS analysis, respectively.', 'Stimulation of TLR3-expressing cells with the synthetic TLR3 ligand, Poly I:C, resulted in the production of cytokines and chemokines important for endometrial function and regulation. Suppression of Poly I:C-induced cytokine and chemokine production by cells treated with 10(-8) M E2, but not cells treated with 10(-7) M P, was observed in endometrial epithelial cell lines expressing TLR3 and estrogen receptor alpha (ERalpha). The effects of E2 were not observed on cells which did not express ERalpha or in cells pre-treated with the ER antagonist, ICI 182, 780. Treatment with E2 did not affect TLR3 mRNA or protein expression. However, treatment with E2 did suppress cytokine and chemokine production resulting from TLR3 stimulation with Poly I:C, suggesting that E2 modulates TLR3 function.\Question: Does 17Beta-estradiol suppress TLR3-induced cytokine and chemokine production in endometrial epithelial cells?
answer:

The data presented in this study are the first indication that E2 can markedly alter the innate immune response to dsRNA, providing a previously unreported process by which E2 can alter immune responses.