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.

Q: 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?

A: 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.
****
Q: Context: Living a purposeful life is associated with better mental and physical health, including longevity. Accumulating evidence shows that these associations might be explained by the association between life purpose and regulation of physiological systems involved in the stress response. The aim of this study was to investigate the prospective associations between life purpose and allostatic load over a 10-year period.', 'Analyses were conducted using data from the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) survey. Assessment of life purpose, psychological covariates and demographics were obtained at baseline, while biomarkers of allostatic load were assessed at the 10-year follow-up.', 'We found that greater life purpose predicted lower levels of allostatic load at follow-up, even when controlling for other aspects of psychological well-being potentially associated with allostatic load. Further, life purpose was also a strong predictor of individual differences in self-health locus of control-i.e., beliefs about how much influence individuals can exert on their own health-which, in turn, partially mediated the association between purpose and allostatic load. Although life purpose was also negatively linked to other-health locus of control-i.e., the extent to which individuals believe their health is controlled by others/chance-this association did not mediate the impact of life purpose on allostatic load.\Question: Does purpose in life predict allostatic load ten years later?

A: The current study provides the first empirical evidence for the long-term physiological correlates of life purpose and supports the hypothesis that self-health locus of control acts as one proximal psychological mechanism through which life purpose may be linked to positive biological outcomes.
****
Q: Context: Inflammation and reactive oxygen species (ROS) are important in the development of perinatal brain injury. The ROS-generating enzyme NADPH oxidase (Nox2) is present in inflammatory cells and contributes to brain injury in adult animal models.', 'NADPH oxidase contributes to ROS formation and development of injury in the immature brain and inhibition of NADPH oxidase attenuates perinatal brain injury.', 'We used animal models of term hypoxia-ischemia (HI) (P9 mice) as well as ibotenate-induced excitotoxic injury (P5 mice) mimicking features of periventricular leukomalacia in preterm infants. In vitro microglia cell cultures were used to investigate NADPH oxidase-dependent ROS formation. In vivo we determined the impact 1) of HI on NADPH oxidase gene expression 2) of genetic (gp91-phox/Nox2 knock-out) and 3) of pharmacological NADPH oxidase inhibition on HI-induced injury and NMDA receptor-mediated excitotoxic injury, respectively. Endpoints were ROS formation, oxidative stress, apoptosis, inflammation and extent of injury.', 'Hypoxia-ischemia increased NADPH oxidase subunits mRNA expression in total brain tissue in vivo. In vitro ibotenate increased NADPH oxidase-dependent formation of reactive oxygen species in microglia. In vivo the inhibition of NADPH oxidase did not reduce the extent of brain injury in any of the animal models. In contrast, the injury was increased by inhibition of NADPH oxidase and genetic inhibition was associated with an increased level of galectin-3 and IL-1beta.\Question: Does pharmacological and genetic inhibition of NADPH oxidase reduce brain damage in different models of perinatal brain injury in newborn mice?

A:
NADPH oxidase is upregulated after hypoxia-ischemia and activated microglia cells are a possible source of Nox2-derived ROS. In contrast to findings in adult brain, NADPH oxidase does not significantly contribute to the pathogenesis of perinatal brain injury. Results obtained in adult animals cannot be transferred to newborns and inhibition of NADPH oxidase should not be used in attempts to attenuate injury.
****