TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: Context: Critically ill preterm and term neonates are at high risk for negative iron balance due to phlebotomy that occurs with frequent laboratory monitoring, and the high iron demand of rapid growth. Understanding the prioritization of iron between red blood cells (RBCs) and brain is important given iron's role in neurodevelopment.", 'Ten neonatal twin lamb pairs (n = 20) underwent regular phlebotomy for 11 d. Lambs were randomized to receive no iron or i.v. daily iron supplementation from 1 to 5\u2009mg/kg. Serum hemoglobin concentration and reticulocyte count were assayed, iron balance calculated, and iron content of RBCs, liver, brain, muscle, and heart measured at autopsy.', 'Among phlebotomized lambs: (i) liver iron concentration was directly related to net iron balance (r = 0.87; P < 0.001) and (ii) brain iron concentration was reduced as a function of net iron balance (r = 0.63) only after liver iron was depleted. In animals with negative iron balance, total RBC iron was maintained while brain iron concentration decreased as a percentage of the iron present in RBCs (r = -0.70; P < 0.01) and as a function of reticulocyte count (r = -0.63; P < 0.05).\Question: Is iron prioritized to red blood cells over the brain in phlebotomized anemic newborn lambs?

SOLUTION: Phlebotomy-induced negative iron balance limits iron availability to the developing brain.

PROBLEM: Context: The blasticidin S resistance gene (bsr) is a selectable marker used for gene transfer experiments. The bsr gene encodes for blasticidin S (BS) deaminase, which has a specific activity upon BS. Therefore, its expression is supposed to be harmless in cells. The work reported on herein consisted of experiments to verify a possible toxicity of bsr on mammalian cells, which include several cell lines and primary cultures.', 'Murine keratinocyte BALB/MK and human primary keratinocyte cells transduced with the retroviral vector LBmSN, which has an improved expression system of bsr, namely bsrm, died in five days after the transduction. Meanwhile the control vector LBSN, which expresses bsr, did not provoke cell death. The lethal activity of bsrm was observed only in human keratinocytes and BALB/MK cells among the cell types tested here. Death appears to be mediated by a factor, which is secreted by the BALB/MK transduced cells.\Question: Is over expression of the selectable marker blasticidin S deaminase gene toxic to human keratinocytes and murine BALB/MK cells?

SOLUTION: By our study we demonstrated that the expression of bsrm gene is toxic to human keratinocytes and BALB/MK cells. It is likely over expression of BS deaminase gene is responsible for the death.

PROBLEM: Context: Although the "right not to know" is well established in international regulations, it has been heavily debated. Ubiquitous results from extended exome and genome analysis have challenged the right not to know. American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics (ACMG) Recommendations urge to inform about incidental findings that pretend to be accurate and actionable. However, ample clinical cases raise the question whether these criteria are met. Many incidental findings are of uncertain significance (IFUS). The eager to feedback information appears to enter the field of IFUS and thereby threaten the right not to know. This makes it imperative to investigate the arguments for and against a right not to know for IFUS.\Question: Is incidental findings of uncertain significance : To know or not to know -- that the question?

SOLUTION:
This article investigates how the various arguments for and against a right not to know hold for IFUS. The main investigated arguments are: hypothetical utilitarianism, the right-based argument, the feasibility argument, the value of knowledge argument, the argument from lost significance, the empirical argument, the duty to disclose argument, the avoiding harm argument; the argument from principle, from autonomy, from privacy, as well as the argument from the right to an open future. The analysis shows that both sides in the debate have exaggerated the importance of incidental findings. Opponents of a right not to know have exaggerated the importance of IFUS, while proponents have exaggerated the need to be protected from something that is not knowledge. Hence, to know or not to know is not the question. The question is whether we should be able to stay ignorant of incidental findings of uncertain significance, if we want to. The answer is yes: As long as the information is not accurate and/or actionable: ignorance is bliss. When answering questions that are not asked, we need to think twice.