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: Loss-of-function mutations in the progranulin gene (PGRN) were identified in frontotemporal lobar degeneration (FTLD) with ubiquitin-immunoreactive neuronal inclusions (FTLD-U). We assessed whether PGRN also contributes to genetic risk for Alzheimer disease (AD) in an extended Belgian AD patient group (n = 779, onset age 74.7 +/- 8.7 years).', 'A mutation analysis of the PGRN coding region was performed. The effect of missense mutations was assessed using in silico predictions and protein modeling. Risk effects of common genetic variants were estimated by logistic regression analysis and gene-based haplotype association analysis.', 'We observed seven missense mutations in eight patients (1.3%). Convincing pathogenic evidence was obtained for two missense mutations, p.Cys139Arg and p.Pro451Leu, affecting PGRN protein folding and leading to loss of PGRN by degradation of the misfolded protein. In addition, we showed that PGRN haplotypes were associated with increased risk for AD.
Answer: Our data support a role for PGRN in patients with clinically diagnosed Alzheimer disease (AD). Further, we hypothesize that at least some PGRN missense mutations might lead to loss of functional protein. Whether the underlying pathology in our cases proves to be AD, frontotemporal lobar degeneration, or a combination of the two must await further investigations.

A: Does genetic variability in progranulin contribute to risk for clinically diagnosed Alzheimer disease?
****
Q: Context: Facial dog bite injuries pose a significant public health problem.', 'Seventy-five consecutive patients (45 males, 30 females) treated solely by plastic surgery service for facial dog bite injuries at a Level I trauma center in the Denver Metro area between 2006 and 2012 were retrospectively reviewed. The following information were recorded: breed, relationship of patient to dog, location and number of wounds, the duration between injury and surgical repair and dog bite incident, type of repair, and antibiotic prophylaxis. Primary end points measured were wound infection, the need for revision surgery, and patient satisfaction.', 'Ninety-eight wounds in the head and neck region were repaired (46 children; mean age, 6.8 years) and (29 adults; mean age, 47.3 years). Twelve different breeds were identified. There was no significant association between the type of dog breed and the number of bite injuries. The duration between injury and repair ranged from 4 hours to 72 hours (mean [SD], 13.7 [10.9] hours). The majority of bite wounds (76 of 98) involved the cheek, lip, nose, and chin region. Direct repair was the most common surgical approach (60 of 98 wounds) (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant association between wounds needing reconstruction versus direct repair according to dog breed (p = 0.25). Ten wounds required grafting. Twenty-five wounds were managed by one-stage or two-stage flaps. Only three patients (3.06 %) underwent replantation/revascularization of amputated partial lip (n = 2) and of cheek (n = 1). There was one postoperative infection. Data from five-point Likert scale were available for fifty-two patients. Forty patients were satisfied (5) with the outcome, while five patients were somewhat satisfied (4), and seven were neutral.
Answer: Availability of the plastic surgery service at a Level I trauma center is vital for the optimal treatment of facial dog bite injuries. Direct repair and reconstruction of facial dog bite injuries at the earliest opportunity resulted in good outcomes as evidenced by the satisfaction survey data and low complication rate.

A: Do retrospective analysis of facial dog bite injuries at a Level I trauma center in the Denver metro area?
****
Q: Context: Sepsis is a systemic inflammatory response to a bacterial infection. Inflammation may result in injury to the small bowel and an increase in translocation of bacteria and toxins across the mucosal barrier, which may contribute to the progression of sepsis. Microcirculatory perfusion or cytopathic hypoxia may cause impairment of tissue bioenergetics and injury in sepsis. The objective of this study was to determine if sepsis is associated with microcirculatory hypoperfusion and impaired tissue bioenergetics in the ileal mucosa.', 'Sprague-Dawley rats were randomized to cecal ligation and perforation (sepsis group, n = 12) or control group (n = 14) and received arterial and venous catheters and fluid resuscitation. Following 24 h, rats were anesthetized with isoflurane and the ileum was prepared for intravital microscopy. Images of NADH fluorescence, which is an index of tissue bioenergetics, central arterial diameter, red cell velocity, red cell flux, and average intercapillary area, were recorded in 6-9 villi in each rat.', 'Central arterial red cell flux (control 277 +/- 30 cell/s, sepsis 108 +/- 13 cells/s, p < .05), diameter (control 10.4 +/- 0.4 microm, sepsis 8.2 +/- 0.3 microm, p < .05) and red cell velocity (control 590 +/- 47 microm/s, sepsis 449 +/- 63 microm/s, p < .05) were decreased while average intercapillary area (control 815 +/- 171 microm(2), sepsis 1412 +/- 364 microm(2), p < .05) and NADH fluorescence (control 116 +/- 6 AIU, sepsis 154 +/- 9 AIU, p < .05) were increased at the villus tip in the sepsis group.
Answer: Sepsis is associated with bioenergetic impairment and capillary hypoperfusion at the villus tip and a decrease in red cell flux in the central arteriole.

A:
Are tissue bioenergetics and microvascular perfusion impaired in rat ileal mucosa in normotensive sepsis?
****