Kinetics of in vitro lysozyme deposition on silicone hydrogel, PMMA, and FDA groups I, II, and IV contact lens materials.

Centre for Contact Lens Research, School of Optometry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.
Current Eye Research (Impact Factor: 1.66). 11/2006; 31(10):787-96. DOI: 10.1080/02713680600888799
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT We sought to compare the kinetics of in vitro lysozyme deposition on silicone hydrogel (SH), polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), and FDA groups I, II, and IV contact lenses. Lenses were incubated in 125I-labeled lysozyme for time periods ranging from 1 hr to 28 days, and radioactive counts were determined. SH lenses and PMMA deposited less lysozyme than conventional hydrogel lenses (p < 0.05). Lysozyme accumulation on group IV lenses reached a maximum on the seventh day and then plateaued, whereas on groups I, II, and SH lenses, deposition continued to increase across all time periods, reiterating that kinetics of lysozyme deposition is highly material dependent.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Tear film protein deposition on contact lens hydrogels has been well characterized from the perspective of bacterial adhesion and viability. However, the effect of protein deposition on lens interactions with the corneal epithelium remains largely unexplored. The current study employs a live cell rheometer to quantify human corneal epithelial cell adhesion to soft contact lenses fouled with the tear film protein lysozyme. PureVision balafilcon A and AirOptix lotrafilcon B lenses were soaked for five days in either phosphate buffered saline (PBS), borate buffered saline (BBS), or Sensitive Eyes Plus Saline Solution (Sensitive Eyes), either pure or in the presence of lysozyme. Treated contact lenses were then contacted to a live monolayer of corneal epithelial cells for two hours, after which the contact lens was sheared laterally. The apparent cell monolayer relaxation modulus was then used to quantify the extent of cell adhesion to the contact lens surface. For both lens types, lysozyme increased corneal cell adhesion to the contact lens, with the apparent cell monolayer relaxation modulus increasing up to an order of magnitude in the presence of protein. The magnitude of this increase depended on the identity of the soaking solution: lenses soaked in borate-buffered solutions (BBS, Sensitive Eyes) exhibited a much greater increase in cell attachment upon protein addition than those soaked in PBS. Significantly, all measurements were conducted while subjecting the cells to moderate surface pressures and shear rates, similar to those experienced by corneal cells in vivo.
    PLoS ONE 08/2014; 9(8):e105512. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0105512 · 3.53 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Abstract Purpose: To determine the effect of competitive adsorption between lysozyme and lactoferrin on silicone hydrogel contact lenses and the effect on lysozyme activity. Methods: Three commercially available silicone hydrogel contact lens materials (senofilcon A, lotrafilcon B and balafilcon A) were examined, for time points ranging from 10 s to 2 h. Total protein deposition was determined by I(125) radiolabeling of lysozyme and lactoferrin, while the activity of lysozyme was determined by a micrococcal activity assay. Results: Senofilcon A and balafilcon A did not show any relevant competitive adsorption between lysozyme and lactoferrin. Lotrafilcon B showed reduced protein deposition due to competitive adsorption for lactoferrin at all time points and lysozyme after 7.5 min. Co-adsorption of lactoferrin and lysozyme decreased the activity of lysozyme in solution for senofilcon A and lotrafilcon B, but co-adsorption had no effect on the surface activity of lysozyme for all lens types investigated. Conclusions: Competition between lysozyme and lactoferrin is material specific. Co-adsorption of lysozyme and lactoferrin does not affect the activity of surface-bound lysozyme but can reduce the activity of subsequently desorbed lysozyme.
    Current Eye Research 09/2014; 40(6):1-10. DOI:10.3109/02713683.2014.946518 · 1.66 Impact Factor