Given a passage, 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.

Ex Input:
The objective of this study is to characterize differential proteomic expression among well-differentiation and poor-differentiation colorectal carcinoma tissues and normal mucous epithelium.', 'The study is based on quantitative 2-dimensional gel electrophoresis and analyzed by PDquest.', 'Excluding redundancies due to proteolysis and posttranslational modified isoforms of over 600 protein spots, 11 proteins were revealed as regulated with statistical variance being within the 95th confidence level and were identified by peptide mass fingerprinting in matrix assisted laser desorption/ionization time-of-flight mass spectrometry. Progression-associated proteins belong to the functional complexes of tumorigenesis, proliferation, differentiation, metabolism, and the regulation of major histocompatibility complex processing and other functions. Partial but significant overlap was revealed with previous proteomics and transcriptomics studies in CRC. Among various differentiation stage of CRC tissues, we identified calreticulin precursor, MHC class I antigen (human leukocyte antigen A ), glutathione S-transferase pi1, keratin 8, heat shock protein 27, tubulin beta chain, triosephosphate, fatty acid-binding protein, hemoglobin (deoxy) mutant with val b 1 replaced by met (HBB), and zinc finger protein 312 (FEZF2).

Ex Output:
Does proteomic analysis reveal novel proteins associated with progression and differentiation of colorectal carcinoma?


Ex Input:
Physiological roles of apelin and its specific receptor APJ signaling were investigated in vascular smooth muscle cells (VSMCs). The present study determined whether apelin activates myosin light chain (MLC), a major regulatory event in initiating smooth muscle contraction.', 'To assess MLC activation, we performed Western blot and immunohistochemical studies using an antibody against the phospho-MLC. In VSMCs, apelin induces the phosphorylation of MLC in a concentration-dependent manner with a peak at 2 minutes. Pretreatment of VSMCs with pertussis toxin abolishes the apelin-induced phosphorylation of MLC. Inhibition of protein kinase C (PKC) with GF-109203X markedly attenuated the apelin-induced MLC phosphorylation. In addition, methylisobutyl amiloride, a specific inhibitor of the Na+/H+ exchanger (NHE), and KB-R7943, a potent inhibitor for the reverse mode of the Na+/Ca2+ exchanger (NCX), significantly suppressed the action of apelin. In wild-type mice, apelin phosphorylates MLC in vascular tissue, whereas it had no response in APJ-deficient mice by Western blot and immunohistochemistry. Apelin-induced phosphorylation of MLC was accompanied with myosin phosphatase target subunit phosphorylation.

Ex Output:
Does apelin stimulate myosin light chain phosphorylation in vascular smooth muscle cells?


Ex Input:
This study was conducted to quantify the effect of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on amputation-free survival (AFS) and wound healing within a chronic critical limb ischemia (CLI) population.', 'We performed a retrospective, single-center cohort study of consecutive CLI patients presenting to the Vascular Surgery Service. Patients who received initial and follow-up wound care from the MDC were compared with patients who received standard wound care (SWC). The MDC team consisted of vascular, plastic, and podiatric surgeons who jointly managed wound care and directed any other consults or services as deemed necessary. SWC consisted of an inconsistent mix of providers without a defined manager, including nurses, wound care midlevel providers, general surgeons, internists, or the patients themselves. The referring physician determined the allocation of patients. The primary outcome variable was AFS, with a secondary evaluation of wound healing. The effects of baseline demographics, comorbid medical conditions, laboratory values, ischemic lesion severity and location, Rutherford classification, and participation in MDC were assessed. Significant univariate predictors (P < .10) of AFS were entered into a multivariate Cox regression model and assessed at an α = .05.', 'Between August 2010 and June 2012, 146 CLI patients (91 male [63%]) were evaluated by the Vascular Surgery Service and were followed up for a median of 539 days (interquartile range 314-679 days). Ischemic tissue loss was present in 85 patients (38 at Rutherford category 5, and 47 at Rutherford category 6). Within this cohort, 51 (60%) had MDC, and 34 (40%) had SWC. Fifty-eight patients (68%) underwent revascularization (open in 17, endovascular in 35, and hybrid in 6), 14 (8%) were managed with primary major amputation, and 13 (15%) declined revascularization. AFS was superior for patients in the MDC arm vs the SWC arm (593.3 ± 53.5 days vs 281.0 ± 38.2 days; log-rank, P = .02). Wound-healing times favored the MDC arm over the SWC arm (444.5 ± 33.2 days vs 625.2 ± 126.5 days), although this was not statistically significant (log-rank, P = .74). Multivariate modelling revealed that independent predictors of major amputation or death, or both, were nonrevascularized patients (hazard ratio [HR], 3.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.78-8.02; χ(2), P < .01), treatment by SWC (HR, 2.664; 95% CI, 1.23-5.77; χ(2), P = .012), and baseline nonambulatory status (HR, 1.89; 95% CI, 1.17-2.85; χ(2), P < .01).

Ex Output:

Does multidisciplinary care improve amputation-free survival in patients with chronic critical limb ischemia?