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: Intrathecal adenosine is antinociceptive under conditions of central sensitization, but not in response to acute stimuli in normals. The reasons for this selective circumstance of action remain unclear, but some evidence links adenosine's antinociceptive effects to release of norepinephrine by terminals in the spinal cord. The purpose of this study was to test whether spinal adenosine induces norepinephrine release selectively in settings of hypersensitivity.", 'Rats randomly assigned to spinal nerve ligation, sham operation, or no operation were anesthetized. A microdialysis fiber was implanted in the spinal cord dorsal horn at the L5-L6 level and perfused with artificial cerebrospinal fluid. After washout and a baseline sample period, adenosine at various concentrations was infused through the fiber for 150 min, and samples were collected every 15 min.', "In ligated, but not in sham or normal animals, adenosine perfusion increased norepinephrine in spinal cord microdialysates in a concentration-dependent manner. The effects of adenosine plateaued after 75 min and remained stable until the end of the experiment. Intravenous injection of selective adenosine A1 and A2 receptor antagonists revealed that adenosine's effect on spinal norepinephrine release was A1 receptor mediated.\Question: Does intraspinal adenosine induce spinal cord norepinephrine release in spinal nerve-ligated rats but not in normal or sham controls?

Ex Output:
This is the first study to provide direct evidence that adenosine is able to release norepinephrine in spinal cord dorsal horns in living animals. However, this effect was only seen in animals after spinal nerve ligation. These data are consistent with behavioral studies demonstrating that adenosine's antinociceptive effects in rats after spinal nerve ligation is totally dependent on intact spinal noradrenergic terminals and can be blocked by spinal alpha 2-adrenergic receptor antagonists.


Ex Input:
Context: Psychostimulants are often used in close temporal proximity to nicotine and have been reported to enhance acutely nicotine's desirability in humans.", 'To investigate the acute associations between amphetamine and nicotine, we examined the potentiative interactions between clinically relevant, low doses of these drugs on locomotor activity, and dopamine overflow in the rat.', 'Locomotor activity was measured by telemetry in the home cage environment, and dopamine overflow was evaluated in striatal slice preparations from female Holtzman rats.', 'When administered simultaneously, nicotine and amphetamine produced a predominantly additive effect on locomotor behavior. However amphetamine, when given 2-4 h before nicotine, strongly potentiated nicotine-induced locomotor activity. Correspondingly, nicotine given 1-4 h before amphetamine robustly enhanced amphetamine-stimulated locomotor activity even when the effects of the nicotine pretreatment dissipated. Acute nicotine pretreatment similarly potentiated the effects of dopamine transporter ligands, cocaine, nomifensine, and methamphetamine but not a direct dopamine receptor agonist. Consistent with the behavioral studies, in vivo nicotine pretreatment exaggerated amphetamine-induced dopamine efflux from rat striatal slices. Likewise, in vivo pretreatment of rats with amphetamine potentiated nicotine-induced dopamine efflux from striatal slices. Direct pretreatment of striatal tissue by nicotine also potentiated subsequent amphetamine-stimulated dopamine overflow, further suggesting that the nicotine-amphetamine interaction occurs at the level of the dopamine terminal.\Question: Do nicotine and amphetamine acutely cross-potentiate their behavioral and neurochemical responses in female Holtzman rats?

Ex Output:
Overall, the present data demonstrate that acute interactions of nicotine and other psychomotor stimulants produce potentiative effects and that these transient interactions may play a role in the frequent co-use and abuse of nicotine and other stimulants.


Ex Input:
Context: In children there is frequently a reason to exclude cystic fibrosis. Sweat testing is used for this. Because sweat testing has some disadvantages we investigated whether analyzing DNA for the local most common CFTR mutations, harvested from buccal cells, is reliable as a method to exclude cystic fibrosis.', 'In patients in whom a sweat test had been ordered during the period January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2004, we harvested buccal cell DNA for analysis. When blood was available, DNA from leukocytes was also analyzed.', 'A total of 73 sweat tests were ordered during the two-year study period, mostly because of recurrent pulmonary infections (36; 49%), failure to thrive (20; 27%) and chronic diarrhea (10, 14%). In 70, children the results of the sweat test were normal, in three patients the results were borderline. Sixty buccal smears were analyzed and no patient was homozygous for cystic fibrosis, two were heterozygous for cystic fibrosis. In none of the children the diagnosis of cystic fibrosis was established.\Question: Is analyzing DNA from buccal cells a reliable method for the exclusion of cystic fibrosis . Results of a pilot study?

Ex Output:

Analyzing DNA in cells, harvested from the buccal cells, is a reliable alternative to exclude cystic fibrosis. It is safe, simple, and child-friendly.


