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.

Example Input: Context: In developmental research, infants are commonly assumed to be early stakeholders in interactions with their caregivers. The tools that infants can use to interact with others vary from visual contact to smiling or vocalizing, and also include motor activity. However, surprisingly few studies have explored how the nature and context of social interactions affect infants' engagement in motor activity.", "We investigated the kinematic properties of foot and face movements produced by 11 infants aged between 5 and 9 months during six contrasting dyadic episodes (i.e. passive presence of a stranger or the infant's mother, weak or intense interaction with the stranger/mother as she sings a nursery play song).", "The infants' face and foot motor activity was significantly reduced during the interactive episodes, compared with the episodes without any interaction, in both the mother and stranger conditions. Furthermore, the level of their motor activity was significantly lower in the stranger condition than in the mother one for some parameters.\Question: Is social interaction associated with changes in infants ' motor activity?
Example Output: These results are in line with those reported by previous studies and confirm the relevance of using motor activity to delineate the early forms of interactive episodes in infants.

Example Input: Context: We measured the effect of two weight adjusted i.v. doses (0.2 mg per 70 kg and 0.4 mg per 70 kg) of the potent opioid buprenorphine on analgesia and respiratory depression in healthy volunteers. The aim of the study was to compare buprenorphine's behaviour with respect to the occurrence of ceiling (or apparent maximum) in these typical micro-opioid protein-(MOP) receptor effects.", 'Ten subjects (5 males) received 0.2 mg per 70 kg, 10 others (5 males) 0.4 mg per 70 kg i.v. buprenorphine. Steady-state inspired minute ventilation at a fixed end-tidal Pco(2) of 7 kPa was measured before drug infusion and at regular intervals after drug infusion. Experimental pain was induced using transcutaneous electrical stimulation and a gradually increasing current. Pain tolerance was measured at regular intervals before and after drug infusion. The studies lasted 8 h.', 'After infusion of the drug ventilation showed a rapid decline and reached peak depression between 150 and 180 min after drug administration. This effect was dose-independent with respect to timing and magnitude. At peak respiratory depression minute ventilation was 13.1 (sd 1.8) litre min(-1) in the 0.2 mg group vs 12.0 (sd 1.3) litre min(-1) in the 0.4 mg group (n.s.). At buprenorphine 0.2 mg a small short-lived analgesic effect was observed with a maximum increase in pain tolerance current of 6.7 (sd 2.8) mA occurring at 75 min after drug administration. Peak analgesic effect was 29% above baseline current. In contrast, buprenorphine 0.4 mg caused a large and long-lived analgesic effect with a maximum increase in pain tolerance current of 23.8 (sd 7.4) mA occurring at 130 min after drug administration. Peak analgesic effect was 160% above baseline current (0.4 vs 0.2 mg, P<0.01).\Question: Does buprenorphine induce ceiling in respiratory depression but not in analgesia?
Example Output: While buprenorphine's analgesic effect increased significantly, respiratory depression was similar in magnitude and timing for the two doses tested. We conclude that over the dose range tested buprenorphine displays ceiling in respiratory effect but none in analgesic effect.

Example Input: Context: Fusobacterium nucleatum, a commensal opportunistic oral bacterium, is capable of invading gingival epithelial cells, but the entrance into human primary oral fibroblast cells has not been documented. This study evaluated the ability of three strains of F. nucleatum (F. nucleatum ssp. nucleatum, F. nucleatum ssp. polymorphum, and F. nucleatum ssp. vincentii) to enter gingival fibroblasts (GFs) and periodontal ligament fibroblasts (PLFs).', 'GFs and PLFs were cocultured for various periods of time with different strains of F. nucleatum. Scanning and transmission electron microscopy, together with confocal laser scanning microscopy, were used to visualize the entrance and presence of bacteria in host cells. Flow cytometry was performed to compare the load of internalized bacteria in GFs and PLFs exposed for 3 and 5 hours to live F. nucleatum labeled with fluorescein isothiocyanate.', 'All three strains of F. nucleatum were found entering and located in the cytoplasm of GFs and PLFs after 1 hour of exposure. Flow cytometry tests revealed a significant increase in the fluorescent signal, compared to baseline, derived from bacteria internalized in fibroblasts exposed for 3 hours (P <0.001); a further increase was found at 5 hours. The greatest bacterial mass in exposed fibroblasts of both types was of F. nucleatum ssp. polymorphum; the smallest was of F. nucleatum ssp. vincentii. Although not statistically significant, PLFs had a higher bacterial load than corresponding GFs.\Question: Does fusobacterium nucleatum enter normal human oral fibroblasts in vitro?
Example Output:
F. nucleatum was capable of entering GFs and PLFs in a manner that is dependent on the cell type and the bacterial strain.