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.
--------
Question: Context: Recent studies have demonstrated that mouthwash made with the traditional Japanese medicine hangeshashinto exhibits anti-inflammatory action and alleviates oral mucositis scores, including pain complaints, in patients undergoing chemoradiotherapy. However, no study has demonstrated the mechanism underlying how hangeshashinto provides pain relief in oral ulcers.', 'The analgesic effects on pain-related behaviors following the topical application of hangeshashinto were evaluated in an oral ulcer rat model treated with acetic acid using recently developed methods. Indomethacin, the representative anti-inflammatory agent, was intraperitoneally administered. The tissue permeability of the oral mucosa was histologically evaluated after applying the fluorescent substance FluoroGold.', 'The topical application of hangeshashinto in ulcerative oral mucosa suppressed mechanical pain hypersensitivity over 60 min, without any effects on healthy mucosa. The same drug application also inhibited oral ulcer-induced spontaneous pain. Indomethacin administration failed to block the mechanical pain hypersensitivity, though it did largely block spontaneous pain. Topical anesthesia with lidocaine showed hyposensitivity to mechanical stimulation in healthy mucosa. In the ulcer regions in which the oral epithelial barrier was destroyed, deep parenchyma was stained with FluoroGold, in contrast to healthy oral mucosa, in which staining was limiting to the superficial site.\Question: Does the traditional Japanese medicine hangeshashinto alleviate oral ulcer-induced pain in a rat model?

Answer: Hangeshashinto leads to long-lasting analgesic effects, specifically in the ulcer region by destroying the epithelial barrier. Hangeshashinto alleviates oral ulcer-induced pain in inflammation-dependent and/or independent manner.


Question: Context: Previous study in human subjects has documented biomechanical and neurophysiological responses to impulsive spinal manipulative thrusts, but very little is known about the neuromechanical effects of varying thrust force-time profiles.', 'Ten adolescent Merino sheep were anesthetized and posteroanterior mechanical thrusts were applied to the L3 spinous process using a computer-controlled, mechanical testing apparatus. Three variable pulse durations (10, 100, 200 ms, force = 80 N) and three variable force amplitudes (20, 40, 60 N, pulse duration = 100 ms) were examined for their effect on lumbar motion response (L3 displacement, L1, L2 acceleration) and normalized multifidus electromyographic response (L3, L4) using a repeated measures analysis of variance.', 'Increasing L3 posteroanterior force amplitude resulted in a fourfold linear increase in L3 posteroanterior vertebral displacement (p < 0.001) and adjacent segment (L1, L2) posteroanterior acceleration response (p < 0.001). L3 displacement was linearly correlated (p < 0.001) to the acceleration response over the 20-80 N force range (100 ms). At constant force, 10 ms thrusts resulted in nearly fivefold lower L3 displacements and significantly increased segmental (L2) acceleration responses compared to the 100 ms (19%, p = 0.005) and 200 ms (16%, p = 0.023) thrusts. Normalized electromyographic responses increased linearly with increasing force amplitude at higher amplitudes and were appreciably affected by mechanical excitation pulse duration.\Question: Do spinal manipulation force and duration affect vertebral movement and neuromuscular responses?

Answer: Changes in the biomechanical and neuromuscular response of the ovine lumbar spine were observed in response to changes in the force-time characteristics of the spinal manipulative thrusts and may be an underlying mechanism in related clinical outcomes.


Question: Context: Mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have powerful immunosuppressive activity. This function of MSCs is attributed to plethora of the expressed immunosuppressive factors, such as galectin-1 (Gal-1), a pleiotropic lectin with robust anti-inflammatory effect. Nevertheless, whether Gal-1 renders or contributes to the immunosuppressive effect of MSCs has not been clearly established. Therefore, this question was the focus of a complex study.', 'MSCs were isolated from bone marrows of wild-type and Gal-1 knockout mice and their in vitro anti-proliferative and apoptosis-inducing effects on activated T cells were examined. The in vivo immunosuppressive activity was tested in murine models of type I diabetes and delayed-type hypersensitivity.', 'Both Gal-1-expressing and -deficient MSCs inhibited T-cell proliferation. Inhibition of T-cell proliferation by MSCs was mediated by nitric oxide but not PD-L1 or Gal-1. In contrast, MSC-derived Gal-1 triggered apoptosis in activated T cells that were directly coupled to MSCs, representing a low proportion of the T-cell population. Furthermore, absence of Gal-1 in MSCs did not affect their in vivo immunosuppressive effect.\Question: Is galectin-1 a local but not systemic immunomodulatory factor in mesenchymal stromal cells?

Answer:
These results serve as evidence that Gal-1 does not play a role in the systemic immunosuppressive effect of MSCs. However, a local contribution of Gal-1 to modulation of T-cell response by direct cell-to-cell interaction cannot be excluded. Notably, this study serves a good model to understand how the specificity of a pleiotropic protein depends on the type and localization of the producing effector cell and its target.