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.

Q: Context: Evidence obtained from porcine cell cultures and experiments in laboratory animals indicates that transmembrane transporters may play a role in the distribution of the active morphine metabolite morphine-6-glucuronide (M6G). This was evaluated in a study in healthy volunteers.', 'Ten subjects received an intravenous M6G infusion for 30 min at a dosage of 0.5 mg/kg body weight, leading to M6G plasma concentrations approximately two to three times higher than those observed with analgesic morphine doses in subjects with normal kidney function. In a randomized, double-blind, three-way crossover fashion, subjects received 800 mg quinidine for inhibition of P-glycoprotein; 500 mg probenecid for inhibition of other transporters, including organic anion transporter peptide, multidrug resistance-related protein, and organic anion transporter families; or placebo 1 h before the start of M6G administration. Plasma concentrations of M6G and pupil size were measured for 7 h.', 'Probenecid pretreatment resulted in a decrease in the clearance of M6G from 8.3 +/- 1 l/h to 6.7 +/- 1.3 l/h (factor of 0.8; P < 0.05 vs. placebo cotreatment). This was paralleled by an increase by a factor of 1.2 of the area under the miotic effect-versus-time curves (P < 0.05 vs. placebo). In contrast, quinidine pretreatment had no influence on the pharmacokinetics of M6G.
Answer: The active morphine metabolite is subject to transmembrane transport by transporters inhibited by probenecid in humans.

A: Does probenecid interact with the pharmacokinetics of morphine-6-glucuronide in humans?
****
Q: Context: Bradykinin is a neuropeptide released after tissue damage which plays an important role in inflammatory pain. The up-regulation of the bradykinin B1 receptor in response to inflammation makes it an attractive target for drug development. Aim was to investigate if the selective B1 receptor antagonist BI113823 reduces inflammation-induced mechanical hyperalgesia and if the effect is mediated via peripheral and/or spinal B1 receptor antagonism.', "Electrophysiological recordings of peripheral afferents and spinal neurons were combined with behavioural experiments to better understand the underlying mechanisms of B1 receptor antagonism. Experiments were performed 24\u2009h after injection of complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA) or saline into the paw of Wistar rats. A gene expression analysis for the B1 receptor was performed in different tissues. BI113823 was administered orally or intrathecally to assess effects on CFA-induced hyperalgesia. Peripheral afferents of the saphenous nerve as well as spinal wide dynamic range (WDR) and nociceptive-specific (NS) neurons were recorded, and mechanosensitivity was measured before and after BI113823 administration.", 'BI113823 reduced CFA-induced mechanical hyperalgesia when administered orally or intrathecally. An increased B1 receptor gene expression was found in peripheral and spinal neural tissue. BI113823 significantly reduced mechanosensitivity of peripheral afferents and spinal NS neurons, but had no effect on WDR neurons.
Answer: The selective bradykinin B1 receptor antagonist BI113823 reduces CFA-induced mechanical hyperalgesia which is mediated via antagonism of peripheral as well as spinal bradykinin B1 receptors. The selective modulation of CFA-sensitized spinal NS neurons by BI113823 could be a promising property for the treatment of inflammatory pain.

A: Does the bradykinin B1 receptor antagonist BI113823 reverse inflammatory hyperalgesia by desensitization of peripheral and spinal neurons?
****
Q: Context: High rates of 23S rDNA mutations implicated in macrolide resistance have been identified in Treponema pallidum samples from syphilis patients in many countries. Nonetheless, some clinicians have been reluctant to abandon azithromycin as a treatment for syphilis, citing the lack of a causal association between these mutations and clinical evidence of drug resistance. Although azithromycin resistance has been demonstrated in vivo for the historical Street 14 strain, no recent T. pallidum isolates have been tested. We used the well-established rabbit model of syphilis to determine the in vivo efficacy of azithromycin against 23S rDNA mutant strains collected in 2004 to 2005 from patients with syphilis in Seattle, Wash.', 'Groups of 9 rabbits were each infected with a strain containing 23S rDNA mutation A2058G (strains UW074B, UW189B, UW391B) or A2059G (strains UW228B, UW254B, and UW330B), or with 1 wild type strain (Chicago, Bal 3, and Mexico A). After documentation of infection, 3 animals per strain were treated with azithromycin, 3 were treated with benzathine penicillin G, and 3 served as untreated control groups. Treatment efficacy was documented by darkfield microscopic evidence of T. pallidum, serological response, and rabbit infectivity test.', 'Azithromycin uniformly failed to cure rabbits infected with strains harboring either 23S rDNA mutation, although benzathine penicillin G was effective. Infections caused by wild type strains were successfully treated by either azithromycin or benzathine penicillin G.
Answer: A macrolide resistant phenotype was demonstrated for all strains harboring a 23S rDNA mutation, demonstrating that either A2058G or A2059G mutation confers in vivo drug resistance.

A:
Does macrolide Resistance in Treponema pallidum correlate With 23S rDNA Mutations in Recently Isolated Clinical Strains?
****