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.

Example Input: Context: Endoplasmic reticulum (ER) stress is induced in many forms of chronic liver disease and may promote the development of hepatocellular carcinoma. The activator protein 1 (AP-1) complex is a transcription factor that promotes hepatic carcinogenesis in response to cellular stress. The aim of this study was to determine the role of ER stress in the regulation of the hepatic AP-1 complex.', 'Human hepatocellular carcinoma (HepG2) cells and C57BL/6J mice were subjected to pharmacologic ER stress and the expression of AP-1-associated genes and proteins was assessed. To determine the role of MAPK signaling in ER stress-induced AP-1 activation, ER stress was induced in JNK- and ERK-inhibited HepG2 cells.', 'Induction of ER stress promoted the activation of both Jun- and Fos-related genes and proteins of the AP-1 complex in HepG2 cells and murine liver. Inhibition of ERK phosphorylation in HepG2 cells completely prevented ER stress-induced activation of the fos-related components of AP-1 whereas activation of Jun-related components was only partially attenuated. Conversely, inhibition of JNK phosphorylation in HepG2 cells reduced ER stress-induced activation of Jun-related components but did not prevent activation of fos-related components.
Answer: ER stress activates the hepatic AP-1 complex via MAPK-dependent signaling pathways. ER stress-induced activation of Fos-related components is dependent primarily on ERK activation whereas ER stress-induced activation of Jun-related components is dependent primarily on JNK activation, although there is interplay between these regulatory pathways. These data implicate a novel signaling pathway by which sustained ER stress, as observed in many chronic liver diseases, may promote hepatic carcinogenesis.
Example Output: Does endoplasmic reticulum stress activate the hepatic activator protein 1 complex via mitogen activated protein kinase-dependent signaling pathways?

Example Input: Context: To find sensitive and specific laboratory examination items for early diagnosing and monitoring liver transplantation reject reaction.', 'Randomly investigate 41 liver transplantation patients, among them there were 16 patients with reject reaction (including 12 with acute rejection, 4 with chronic rejection). Plasma soluble thrombomodulin (STM) and von Willebrand factor (vWF) levels were measured before operation and every other day after operation.', 'Plasma STM level increased significantly after operation, two days before rejection and after acute rejection (5.58 ng/ml +/- 0.42 ng/ml, 5.93 ng/ml +/- 0.45 ng/ml, and 7.88 ng/ml +/- 0.29 ng/ml, respectively), so did vWF level (101.2% +/- 4.68%, 104.3% +/- 5.78%, and 127.7% +/- 5.74%, respectively). STM level was much higher in acute rejection than that in chronic rejection (7.88 ng/ml +/- 0.29 ng/ml vs. 6.35 ng/ml +/- 0.54 ng/ml, t = 2.46, P < 0.05), in no reaction group after impacting therapy than in effective group (8.30 ng/ml +/- 0.19 ng/ml vs. 3.82 ng/ml +/- 0.22 ng/ml, t = 12.98, P < 0.01), and in dead group after treatment than in living group (7.98 ng/ml +/- 0.18 ng/ml vs. 6.51 ng/ml +/- 0.41 ng/ml, t = 3.39, P < 0.01).
Answer: Plasma STM and vWF can be taken as laboratory items for monitoring liver transplantation rejection. Plasma STM can act as not only an early prognosticating marker, but also suitable to distinguish acute from chronic reject reaction, and as a marker for monitoring impacting therapy effect and judging prognosis.
Example Output: Do [ Values of soluble thrombomodulin and von Willebrand factor judging reject reaction in liver transplantation ]?

Example Input: Context: Formalin injection induces nociceptive bahaviour in phase I and II, with a quiescent phase between them. While active inhibitory mechanisms are proposed to be responsible for initiation of interphase, the exact mechanisms which lead to termination of nociceptive response in phase II are not clear yet. Phase II is a consequence of peripheral and central sensitization processes, which can lead to termination of the noxious stimuli responses; 45-60 minutes after formalin injection via possible recruitment of active inhibitory mechanisms which we have investigated in this study.', 'To test our hypothesis, in the first set of experiments, we evaluated nociceptive response after two consecutive injection of formalin (50µL, 2%), with intervals of 5 or 60 minutes. In the next set, formalin tests were carried out in companion with injection of Naloxone Hydrochloride, a non-selective antagonist of opioid receptors, pre-formalin injection and 30 and 45 minutes post formalin injection.', 'While normal nociceptive behaviour was observed in the group receiving one injection of formalin, a diminished response was observed in phases I and II of those receiving consequent injection of formalin, 60 minute after first injection. While second injection of formalin, 5 minute after first injection, had no effect. Administration of naloxone (1mg/kg) decreased nociception in phase 2A; but had no effect on delayed termination of formalin test.
Answer: The results of this study suggest the existence of an active inhibitory mechanism, other than the endogenous opioids, that is responsible for termination of nociceptive behaviour at the end of formalin test.
Example Output:
Is termination of Nociceptive Bahaviour at the End of Phase 2 of Formalin Test Attributable to Endogenous Inhibitory Mechanisms , but not by Opioid Receptors Activation?