Cargando…

The efficiency of contact lens care regimens on protein removal from hydrogel and silicone hydrogel lenses

PURPOSE: To investigate the efficiency of lysozyme and albumin removal from silicone hydrogel and conventional contact lenses, using a polyhexamethylene biguanide multipurpose solution (MPS) in a soaking or rubbing/soaking application and a hydrogen peroxide system (H(2)O(2)). METHODS: Etafilcon A,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Luensmann, Doerte, Heynen, Miriam, Liu, Lina, Sheardown, Heather, Jones, Lyndon
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Molecular Vision 2010
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2808856/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098668
_version_ 1782176538704216064
author Luensmann, Doerte
Heynen, Miriam
Liu, Lina
Sheardown, Heather
Jones, Lyndon
author_facet Luensmann, Doerte
Heynen, Miriam
Liu, Lina
Sheardown, Heather
Jones, Lyndon
author_sort Luensmann, Doerte
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: To investigate the efficiency of lysozyme and albumin removal from silicone hydrogel and conventional contact lenses, using a polyhexamethylene biguanide multipurpose solution (MPS) in a soaking or rubbing/soaking application and a hydrogen peroxide system (H(2)O(2)). METHODS: Etafilcon A, lotrafilcon B and balafilcon A materials were incubated in protein solutions for up to 14 days. Lenses were either placed in radiolabeled protein to quantify the amount deposited or in fluorescent-conjugated protein to identify its location, using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Lenses were either rinsed with PBS or soaked overnight in H(2)O(2) or MPS with and without lens rubbing. RESULTS: After 14 days lysozyme was highest on etafilcon A (2,200 μg) >balafilcon A (50 µg) >lotrafilcon B (9.7 µg) and albumin was highest on balafilcon A (1.9 µg) =lotrafilcon B (1.8 µg) >etafilcon A (0.2 µg). Lysozyme removal was greatest for balafilcon A >etafilcon A >lotrafilcon B, with etafilcon A showing the most change in protein distribution. Albumin removal was highest from etafilcon A >balafilcon A >lotrafilcon B. H(2)O(2) exhibited greater lysozyme removal from etafilcon A compared to both MPS procedures (p<0.001) but performed similarly for lotrafilcon B and balafilcon A lenses (p>0.62). Albumin removal was solely material specific, while all care regimens performed to a similar degree (p>0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Protein removal efficiency for the regimens evaluated depended on the lens material and protein type. Overall, lens rubbing with MPS before soaking did not reduce the protein content on the lenses compared to nonrubbed lenses (p=0.89).
format Text
id pubmed-2808856
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2010
publisher Molecular Vision
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-28088562010-01-21 The efficiency of contact lens care regimens on protein removal from hydrogel and silicone hydrogel lenses Luensmann, Doerte Heynen, Miriam Liu, Lina Sheardown, Heather Jones, Lyndon Mol Vis Research Article PURPOSE: To investigate the efficiency of lysozyme and albumin removal from silicone hydrogel and conventional contact lenses, using a polyhexamethylene biguanide multipurpose solution (MPS) in a soaking or rubbing/soaking application and a hydrogen peroxide system (H(2)O(2)). METHODS: Etafilcon A, lotrafilcon B and balafilcon A materials were incubated in protein solutions for up to 14 days. Lenses were either placed in radiolabeled protein to quantify the amount deposited or in fluorescent-conjugated protein to identify its location, using confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Lenses were either rinsed with PBS or soaked overnight in H(2)O(2) or MPS with and without lens rubbing. RESULTS: After 14 days lysozyme was highest on etafilcon A (2,200 μg) >balafilcon A (50 µg) >lotrafilcon B (9.7 µg) and albumin was highest on balafilcon A (1.9 µg) =lotrafilcon B (1.8 µg) >etafilcon A (0.2 µg). Lysozyme removal was greatest for balafilcon A >etafilcon A >lotrafilcon B, with etafilcon A showing the most change in protein distribution. Albumin removal was highest from etafilcon A >balafilcon A >lotrafilcon B. H(2)O(2) exhibited greater lysozyme removal from etafilcon A compared to both MPS procedures (p<0.001) but performed similarly for lotrafilcon B and balafilcon A lenses (p>0.62). Albumin removal was solely material specific, while all care regimens performed to a similar degree (p>0.69). CONCLUSIONS: Protein removal efficiency for the regimens evaluated depended on the lens material and protein type. Overall, lens rubbing with MPS before soaking did not reduce the protein content on the lenses compared to nonrubbed lenses (p=0.89). Molecular Vision 2010-01-20 /pmc/articles/PMC2808856/ /pubmed/20098668 Text en Copyright © 2010 Molecular Vision. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Luensmann, Doerte
Heynen, Miriam
Liu, Lina
Sheardown, Heather
Jones, Lyndon
The efficiency of contact lens care regimens on protein removal from hydrogel and silicone hydrogel lenses
title The efficiency of contact lens care regimens on protein removal from hydrogel and silicone hydrogel lenses
title_full The efficiency of contact lens care regimens on protein removal from hydrogel and silicone hydrogel lenses
title_fullStr The efficiency of contact lens care regimens on protein removal from hydrogel and silicone hydrogel lenses
title_full_unstemmed The efficiency of contact lens care regimens on protein removal from hydrogel and silicone hydrogel lenses
title_short The efficiency of contact lens care regimens on protein removal from hydrogel and silicone hydrogel lenses
title_sort efficiency of contact lens care regimens on protein removal from hydrogel and silicone hydrogel lenses
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2808856/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20098668
work_keys_str_mv AT luensmanndoerte theefficiencyofcontactlenscareregimensonproteinremovalfromhydrogelandsiliconehydrogellenses
AT heynenmiriam theefficiencyofcontactlenscareregimensonproteinremovalfromhydrogelandsiliconehydrogellenses
AT liulina theefficiencyofcontactlenscareregimensonproteinremovalfromhydrogelandsiliconehydrogellenses
AT sheardownheather theefficiencyofcontactlenscareregimensonproteinremovalfromhydrogelandsiliconehydrogellenses
AT joneslyndon theefficiencyofcontactlenscareregimensonproteinremovalfromhydrogelandsiliconehydrogellenses
AT luensmanndoerte efficiencyofcontactlenscareregimensonproteinremovalfromhydrogelandsiliconehydrogellenses
AT heynenmiriam efficiencyofcontactlenscareregimensonproteinremovalfromhydrogelandsiliconehydrogellenses
AT liulina efficiencyofcontactlenscareregimensonproteinremovalfromhydrogelandsiliconehydrogellenses
AT sheardownheather efficiencyofcontactlenscareregimensonproteinremovalfromhydrogelandsiliconehydrogellenses
AT joneslyndon efficiencyofcontactlenscareregimensonproteinremovalfromhydrogelandsiliconehydrogellenses