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.

Input: Consider Input: Context: We examined the effects of cilostazol on mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) activity and its relationship with cilostazol-mediated protection against apoptosis in lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-treated endothelial cells.', 'Human umbilical vein endothelial cells (HUVECs) were exposed to LPS and cilostazol with and without specific inhibitors of MAPKs; changes in MAPK activity in association with cell viability and apoptotic signaling were investigated.', 'Cilostazol protected HUVECs against LPS-induced apoptosis by suppressing the mitochondrial permeability transition, cytosolic release of cytochrome c, and subsequent activation of caspases, stimulating extracellullar signal-regulated kinase (ERK1/2) and p38 MAPK signaling, and increasing phosphorylated cAMP-responsive element-binding protein (CREB) and Bcl-2 expression, while suppressing Bax expression. These cilostazol-mediated cellular events were effectively blocked by MAPK/ERK kinase (MEK1/2) and p38 MAPK inhibitors.\Question: Does cilostazol protect endothelial cells against lipopolysaccharide-induced apoptosis through ERK1/2- and P38 MAPK-dependent pathways?

Output: Cilostazol protects HUVECs against LPS-induced apoptosis by suppressing mitochondria-dependent apoptotic signaling. Activation of ERK1/2 and p38 MAPKs, and subsequent stimulation of CREB phosphorylation and Bcl-2 expression, may be responsible for the cellular signaling mechanism of cilostazol-mediated protection.


Input: Consider Input: Context: In streptozotocin-injected rats (STZ-rats), we previously demonstrated a role for angiotensin II (AT-II) in cardiac remodelling and insulin resistance partially counteracted by in vivo treatment with losartan, an AT-II receptor antagonist.We now aimed to investigate the effect of treating diabetic STZ-rats with losartan on diabetes vascular response to vasoconstrictors.', 'Male Wistar rats were randomly divided in four groups, two of them were assigned to receive losartan in the drinking water (20 mg/kg/day) until the experiment ending (3 weeks afterward). After 1 week, two groups, one of which receiving losartan, were injected in the tail vein with citrate buffer (normoglycemic, N and normoglycemic, losartan-treated, NL). The remaining received a single injection of streptozotocin (50 mg/kg in citrate i.v.) thus becoming diabetic (D) and diabetic losartan-treated (DL). Plasma glycaemia and blood pressure were measured in all animals before the sacrifice (15 days after diabetes induction).In aortic strips isolated from N, NL, D and DL rats we evaluated i) the isometric concentration-dependent contractile response to phenylephrine (Phe) and to AT-II; ii) the RhoA-kinase (ROCK1) activity and expression by enzyme-immunoassay and Western blot respectively.', 'The concentration-dependent contractile effect of Phe was similar in aortas from all groups, whereas at all concentrations tested, AT-II contraction efficacy was 2 and half and 1 and half times higher in D and DL respectively in comparison with N and NL. AT-II contracture was similarly reduced in all groups by AT-II receptor antagonists, irbesartan or irbesartan plus PD123319. HA-1077 (10 microM), an inhibitor of ROCK1 activity, reduced AT-II efficacy (Deltamg/mg tissue w.w.) by -3.5 +/- 1.0, -4.6 +/- 1.9, -22.1 +/- 2.2 and -11.4 +/- 1.3 in N, NL, D and DL respectively). ROCK1 activity and expression were higher in D than in N/NL and DL aortas.\Question: Does losartan counteract the hyper-reactivity to angiotensin II and ROCK1 over-activation in aortas isolated from streptozotocin-injected diabetic rats?

Output: Aortas isolated from STZ-rats present hyper-contracture to AT-II mainly dependent on the up-regulation of ROCK1 expression/activity. In vivo losartan treatment partially corrects AT-II hyper-contracture, limiting the increase in ROCK1 expression/activity. These data offer a new molecular mechanism supporting the rationale for using losartan in the prevention of diabetic vascular complications.


Input: Consider Input: Context: We recently showed that intracerebroventricular infusion of neuropeptide Y (NPY) hampers inhibition of endogenous glucose production (EGP) by insulin in mice. The downstream mechanisms responsible for these effects of NPY remain to be elucidated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to establish whether intracerebroventricular NPY administration modulates the suppressive action of insulin on EGP via hepatic sympathetic or parasympathetic innervation.', 'The effects of a continuous intracerebroventricular infusion of NPY on glucose turnover were determined in rats during a hyperinsulinemic-euglycemic clamp. Either rats were sham operated, or the liver was sympathetically (hepatic sympathectomy) or parasympathetically (hepatic parasympathectomy) denervated.', 'Sympathectomy or parasympathectomy did not affect the capacity of insulin to suppress EGP in intracerebroventricular vehicle-infused animals (50 +/- 8 vs. 49 +/- 6 vs. 55 +/- 6%, in hepatic sympathectomy vs. hepatic parasympathectomy vs. sham, respectively). Intracerebroventricular infusion of NPY significantly hampered the suppression of EGP by insulin in sham-denervated animals (29 +/- 9 vs. 55 +/- 6% for NPY/sham vs. vehicle/sham, respectively, P = 0.038). Selective sympathetic denervation of the liver completely blocked the effect of intracerebroventricular NPY administration on insulin action to suppress EGP (NPY/hepatic sympathectomy, 57 +/- 7%), whereas selective parasympathetic denervation had no effect (NPY/hepatic parasympathectomy, 29 +/- 7%).\Question: Does intracerebroventricular administration of neuropeptide Y induce hepatic insulin resistance via sympathetic innervation?


Output: Intracerebroventricular administration of NPY acutely induces insulin resistance of EGP via activation of sympathetic output to the liver.