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.

Context: TECPR2 was first described as a disease causing gene when the c.3416delT frameshift mutation was found in five Jewish Bukharian patients with similar features. It was suggested to constitute a new subtype of complex hereditary spastic paraparesis (SPG49).', 'We report here 3 additional patients from unrelated non-Bukharian families, harboring two novel mutations (c.1319delT, c.C566T) in this gene. Accumulating clinical data clarifies that in addition to intellectual disability and evolving spasticity the main disabling feature of this unique disorder is autonomic-sensory neuropathy accompanied by chronic respiratory disease and paroxysmal autonomic events.
Answer: We suggest that the disease should therefore be classified as a new subtype of hereditary sensory-autonomic neuropathy. The discovery of additional mutations in non-Bukharian patients implies that this disease might be more common than previously appreciated and should therefore be considered in undiagnosed cases of intellectual disability with autonomic features and respiratory symptoms regardless of demographic origin.
Do tECPR2 mutations cause a new subtype of familial dysautonomia like hereditary sensory autonomic neuropathy with intellectual disability?

Context: Apicomplexan parasites actively release transmembrane (TM) adhesive proteins involved in host cell attachment and invasion. Rhomboids, a family of intramembrane serine proteases, cleave these secreted adhesive proteins within their TM domains as an essential step in completing the invasion process. In Cryptosporidium parvum, the activity of rhomboids in cleaving microneme proteins (MICs) has not been reported. In the present study, the interaction between C. parvum rhomboids (CpROM1 and CpROM4) and C. parvum microneme proteins (CpGP900 and CpTRAP-C1) was investigated using yeast two-hybrid assay and co-immunoprecipitation assays.', 'Our study demonstrated that CpROM1 protein could interact with CpGP900 protein in co-transformed AH109 yeasts. Analysis of these proteins in co-transfected mammalian cells showed that the cleavage product of the CpGP900 protein was detected in the co-transfected cells. As control, CpGP900 only was transfected into cells and no cleavage was observed. The results suggested that CpGP900 protein was the substrate of CpROM1. Moreover, CpROM1 and CpROM4 could not cleave CpTRAP-C1 protein, which is the substrate of T. gondii rhomboid 2.
Answer: Our results showed that CpROM1 is an active protease that is involved in microneme protein CpGP900 cleavage, which lay the foundation for further research on the mechanisms of C. parvum invasion.
Does cryptosporidium parvum rhomboid1 have an activity in microneme protein CpGP900 cleavage?

Context: Cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) is initiated by allograft endothelial injury. We hypothesized that a major mechanism by which cytomegalovirus (CMV) could contribute to CAV is by dysregulation of the endothelial vasomotor response.', 'Coronary endothelial vasomotor function was determined in 183 consecutive patients (24+/-33 months after transplantation), and was correlated with recipient and donor CMV serological status before transplantation and with documented CMV infection episodes (CMVpp65Ag+). Serial endothelial function measurements were performed in a subgroup of 53 transplant recipients (1 month and 12 months after transplantation). The composite endpoint of cardiovascular related events and death during a follow-up of 66+/-41 months was analyzed based on the CMV serological status before transplantation.', 'The medium event-free time for CMV-negative recipients of CMV-positive hearts was 8.1 years compared with 13.3 years for the other groups (P<0.05). Distal epicardial but not microvascular endothelial function was significantly impaired in CMV seronegative recipients of seropositive donor hearts (n=48) compared with all other groups (P<0.01 versus seronegative recipient/seronegative donor; P<0.05 versus seropositive recipient/seronegative donor; P<0.05 versus seropositive recipient/seropositive donor). Distal epicardial endothelial dysfunction was more pronounced in heart transplant recipients with a history of documented CMV infection compared with patients without any documented CMV infection (P<0.01). In a longitudinal subgroup analysis, distal epicardial and microcirculatory endothelial vasomotor response deteriorated significantly in recipients with documented CMV infection (P<0.05 versus baseline) but not in patients without previous CMV infection.
Answer: Documented CMV infection episodes in heart transplant recipients are associated with impaired coronary endothelial function. CMV-negative recipients of CMV-positive donor hearts have an impaired distal epicardial endothelial function and an increased incidence of cardiovascular-related events and death during follow-up. CMV infection may contribute to allograft failure by accelerating coronary endothelial dysfunction.

Is cytomegalovirus infection in heart transplant recipients associated with impaired endothelial function?