May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Lab-On-A-Chip Analysis of Dry versus Normal Rabbit Tear Proteomics
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • S. N. Gianelloni
    Ophthalmology, LSUHSC, New Orleans, Louisiana
  • J. T. Jacob
    Ophthalmology, LSUHSC, New Orleans, Louisiana
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  S.N. Gianelloni, None; J.T. Jacob, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  NEI R03 EY014021 (JJ), NEI P30EY02377 (LSU Eye Center Core Grant), and an unrestricted challenge grant from Research to Prevent Blindness, NY, NY
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 5294. doi:
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      S. N. Gianelloni, J. T. Jacob; Lab-On-A-Chip Analysis of Dry versus Normal Rabbit Tear Proteomics. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):5294. doi:

      Download citation file:

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

  • Supplements

Purpose: : To identify key changes in the protein profile of dry versus normal rabbit tears compared using lab-on-a-chip 1D protein analysis techniques.

Methods: : Dry eye was induced in one eye of each rabbit by complete lacrimal, accessory, and harderian gland removal. Rabbit tears were collected by standard silanized micro-capillary tubes. Samples were stored individually at -80°C in eppendorf tubes until use. Protein profiling of the non-pooled tear samples was performed on the Bioanalyzer (Agilent Technologies) using both the 230 and 80 MW kits under reduced and non-reduced conditions.

Results: : Differences between dry and normal tear samples were more easily identified using reduced analysis techniques. Reduced tear analysis using the 230 kit produced electrophergrams with only a few peaks in the molecular weight range above that determinable with the 80 MW kit. Tear electrophergrams produced using the 80 MW kit separated out a greater number of individaul protein associated peaks and allowed for easier comparison between dry and normal tear protein profiles.

Conclusions: : Differences in specific tear profiles can be seen using both types of molecular weight kits. However, specific differences in protein peak heights for the majority of peaks are more readily determined using the 80 MW kit. The advantage of the small sample size requirement and rapid run time makes this analysis method a potentially good technique for screening tear protein profile differences.

Keywords: cornea: tears/tear film/dry eye 

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.