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.

Ex Input:
Context: Environmental conditions (eg, latitude) play a critical role in the susceptibility and severity of many autoimmune disorders, including multiple sclerosis (MS). Here, we investigated the mechanisms underlying the beneficial effects of immune regulatory processes induced in the skin by moderate ultraviolet B (UVB) radiation on central nervous system (CNS) autoimmunity.', 'Effects of UVB light were analyzed in a murine model of CNS autoimmunity (experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis). Additionally, patients with relapsing-remitting MS were treated with narrowband UVB phototherapy. Immunomodulatory effects were examined in skin biopsies, serum samples, and immune cells of the peripheral blood.', 'Regulatory T cells (Tregs), which are induced locally in the skin-draining lymph nodes in response to UVB exposure, connect the cutaneous immune response to CNS immunity by migration to the sites of inflammation (blood, spleen, CNS). Here, they attenuate the inflammatory response and ameliorate disease symptoms. Treg-inducing tolerogenic dendritic cells (DCs) were further necessary for induction of this systemic immune regulation by UVB radiation, because ablation of Langerhans cells abolished the UVB-induced phenotype. MS patients treated with UVB phototherapy showed an increase in induced Tregs and tolerogenic DCs accompanied by the downregulation of the T-cell effector cytokine interleukin 21. The treatment further induced elevated serum levels of vitamin D.\Question: Does ultraviolet B light attenuate the systemic immune response in central nervous system autoimmunity?

Ex Output:
Local UVB radiation of the skin influences systemic immune reactions and attenuates systemic autoimmunity via the induction of skin-derived tolerogenic DCs and Tregs. Our data could have implications for the understanding or therapeutic modulation of environmental factors that influence immune tolerance.

Ex Input:
Context: The proteasome is the proteolytically active core of the ubiquitin-proteasome system, which regulates vital processes and which can cause various diseases when it malfunctions. Therefore, the proteasome has become an attractive target for pharmaceutical interventions. Inhibition of the cardiac proteasome by specific proteasome inhibitors has been shown to attenuate cardiac hypertrophy and ischaemia reperfusion injury of the heart. We have resolved the cardiac proteasome into its subtypes and have addressed the key question of how proteasome inhibitors affect single cardiac proteasomal subtypes.', 'The 20S proteasome from rat heart was dissected into three different subpopulations (groups I-III), each comprising 4-7 different subtypes. The major group (group II) comprises standard proteasome subtypes; the two minor subpopulations (groups I and III) contain intermediate proteasome subtypes. All subtypes exhibit chymotrypsin-, trypsin-, and caspase-like activity but to different degrees. We have tested the effect of two common proteasome inhibitors on the chymotrypsin-like activity of all subtypes: 20-30 nmol/L MG132 caused 50% inhibition of all subtypes from groups I and II, whereas 100 nmol/L was necessary to affect group III subtypes to the same extent. However, another inhibitor, bortezomib (VELCADE), already used clinically, inhibited 50% of the activity of group III proteasome subtypes even below 20 nmol/L, a concentration showing almost no effect on group I and II proteasome subtypes. The caspase-like activity of group II proteasome subtypes was not affected by MG132 and was inhibited by bortezomib only at concentrations above 100 nmol/L.\Question: Do multiple cardiac proteasome subtypes differ in their susceptibility to proteasome inhibitors?

Ex Output:
These data show that different inhibitors have differential inhibitory effects on the various cardiac proteasome subtypes. Different cardiac subtypes are inhibited by the same dose of proteasome inhibitor to a different extent.

Ex Input:
Context: Participation rates in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are rather low. We evaluated the interest of first degree relatives (FDR) of CRC patients to participate in a colonoscopy screening and compared the findings to controls with a negative family history.', 'There were 235 CRC patients diagnosed in our centre in 1984-2001. These were mailed an invitation letter for a preventive examination for their FDR older than 40 years and a questionnaire about occurrence of malignancies in their family. Colonoscopy was performed in 52 FDR and sex/age matched controls.', 'The questionnaire was delivered to 196 patients. Thirty four (17.3%) patients responded. Positive family history for CRC was reported in 12/34 (35.3%) patients, compared to expected 3.4 patients (p = 0.04; OR 4.2; 95% CI = 1.05-17.89). Fifty two of 94 (55.3%) FDR participated in a screening and CRC was diagnosed in 2 and CRA in 18 patients compared to 1 CRC and 9 CRA in control group (p = 0.04; Kaplan-Meier p = 0.04).\Question: Does positive family history promote participation in colorectal cancer screening?

Ex Output:
Positive family history seems to be a motivation factor for a participation in a CRC screening program. Consistent with previous studies the prevalence of CRA and CRC was significantly higher in the group of FDR compared to controls (Tab. 3, Fig. 1, Ref. 20).