June 2013
Volume 54, Issue 15
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   June 2013
Direct comparison between in situ versus extraction techniques for measuring adsorbed proteins: application to lysozyme deposited onto hydrogel contact lenses
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Brad Hall
    University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • Chau-Minh Phan
    University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • Lakshman Subbaraman
    University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • Lyndon Jones
    University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • James Forrest
    University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships Brad Hall, None; Chau-Minh Phan, None; Lakshman Subbaraman, None; Lyndon Jones, Alcon (F), Alcon (R), Allergan (F), Abbott Medical Optics (R), Bausch & Lomb (R), Ciba Vision (F), Ciba Vision (R), CooperVision (F), Johnson & Johnson (F), Johnson & Johnson (R); James Forrest, None
  • Footnotes
    Support None
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 2013, Vol.54, 5467. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Brad Hall, Chau-Minh Phan, Lakshman Subbaraman, Lyndon Jones, James Forrest; Direct comparison between in situ versus extraction techniques for measuring adsorbed proteins: application to lysozyme deposited onto hydrogel contact lenses. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2013;54(15):5467.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: To compare two techniques for measuring the activity of lysozyme deposited onto hydrogel contact lens and to image the binding of Micrococcus lysodeikticus to contact lenses.

Methods: Using a previously described protein extraction technique and a recently developed in-situ technique, we measured the time dependent activity of adsorbed lysozyme on six different contact lens materials during the first minute and up to one week of interaction with the material surface. Total activity of extracted lysozyme, total in-situ activity and the activity of the outer surface layer of sorbed lysozyme were determined using the two different techniques. Micrococcal cellular interaction with surface-adsorbed lysozyme was imaged using confocal microscopy.

Results: The differences between total extracted activities, total in-situ activities and surface activities were both measurable and material specific. In most cases the total extracted activity > total in-situ activity > surface activity. After one week, etafilcon A had the highest extracted activity at 137μg/lens, followed by omafilcon A, balafilcon A, comfilcon A, senofilcon A, and lotrafilcon B at 27.4μg, 2.9μg, 2.0μg, 0.5μg, and 0.3μg respectively. Subsequent removal of adhered micrococcal cells was greatest on balafilcon A, which had the highest surface activity, and lowest on lotrafilcon B, which had the lowest surface activity.

Conclusions: This study measured and made direct comparisons between two established techniques for measuring the activity of adsorbed lysozyme. Both techniques demonstrate material dependent differences in activity. While individual extraction activities demonstrate the activity of underlying layers of lysozyme or lysozyme within the matrix of the material, in-situ measurements allow conclusions to be drawn about only the biologically relevant lysozyme, and surface activity measurements reveal the activity of just the outer surface of lysozyme.

Keywords: 477 contact lens • 659 protein structure/function  
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×