Extraction Efficiency of an Extraction Buffer Used to Quantify Lysozyme Deposition on Conventional and Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Materials

A Review of Techniques to Measure Protein Sorption to Soft Contact Lenses

PURPOSE

To compare and critically evaluate a variety of techniques to measure the quantity and biological activity of protein sorption to contact lenses over short time periods.

METHODS

A literature review was undertaken investigating the major techniques to measure protein sorption to soft contact lens materials, with specific reference to measuring protein directly on lenses using in situ, ex situ, protein structural, and biological activity techniques.

RESULTS

The use of in situ techniques to measure protein quantity provides excellent sensitivity, but many are not directly applicable to contact lenses. Many ex situ techniques struggle to measure all sorbed proteins, and these measurements can have significant signal interference from the lens materials themselves. Techniques measuring the secondary and tertiary structures of sorbed proteins have exhibited only limited success.

CONCLUSIONS

There are a wide variety of techniques to measure both the amount of protein and the biological activity of protein sorbed to soft contact lens materials. To measure the mass of protein sorbed to soft contact lenses (not just thin films) over short time periods, the method of choice should be I radiolabeling. This technique is sensitive enough to measure small amounts of deposited protein, provided steps are taken to limit and measure any interaction of the iodine tracer with the materials. To measure the protein activity over short time periods, the method of choice should be to measure the biological function of sorbed proteins. This may require new methods or adaptations of existing ones.

Kinetics of Competitive Adsorption between Lysozyme and Lactoferrin on Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lenses and the Effect on Lysozyme Activity

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.

Optimization of a fluorescence-based lysozyme activity assay for contact lens studies

PURPOSE

To optimize a fluorescence-based lysozyme activity assay to investigate the conformational state of lysozyme in solution and to determine the impact of extraction and evaporation procedures and the possible interference of contact lens materials on lysozyme activity.

METHODS

The fluorescence-based lysozyme activity assay, Enzchek (Molecular Probes Inc, Eugene, OR) which utilizes fluorescently quenched Micrococcus lysodeikticus, was compared to the gold standard, classical lysozyme turbidity assay, using four differently concentrated lysozyme samples (20, 10, 5.0 and 2.0 ng/µL). Furthermore, six differently concentrated lysozyme samples (2.0, 1.0, 0.5, 0.25, 0.125 and 0.01 µg/µL) were quantified using the fluorescence-based assay in the presence of extraction solvents consisting of 0.2% and 0.02% trifluroacetic acid/acetonitrile and following evaporation procedures.

RESULTS

A standard curve was generated by the fluorescence-based assay ranging from 2 to 150 ng. The total active lysozyme quantified in the four lysozyme samples was not significantly different between the two assays (p > 0.05) and the concordance correlation coefficient was determined to be 0.995. However an average discrepancy between the two assays was found to be 0.474 ng, with the turbidity assay typically reporting higher active lysozyme measurements. The sensitivity of the fluorescence-based assay was higher than the classical turbidity assay when quantifying 20 ng or less active lysozyme. Following the extraction and evaporation procedures and the addition of lens extracts, the total active lysozyme recovered was 95% or greater.

CONCLUSIONS

In comparison to the classical turbidity assay, the fluorescence-based assay is a very sensitive method, making it a favorable technique, particularly when studying contact lens materials that deposit relatively low levels of lysozyme.

Evaluation of extractants and precipitants in tear film proteomic analyses

PURPOSE

To determine the efficiency of several protein extraction or precipitation treatments used in proteomic analyses.

METHODS

Tear samples were taken from each eye of 40 normal subjects using glass microcapillaries. Tear volume was measured followed by storage at -86°C. Lotrafilcon B contact lenses were fitted and worn for 14 days, followed by removal and storage at -86°C. Tear samples from each eye within a subject were randomly assigned to either one of four chemical treatments (acetone, trichloroacetic acid, urea, and trifluoroacetic acid/acetonitrile [TFA/ACN]) or no chemical treatment in groups of 10. Contact lens samples were subjected to the same treatments as tear samples for each subject, with a second treatment preceding the first. Protein concentrations were quantified by Bradford assay.

RESULTS

For tear samples, a significant reduction in total protein was observed when subjected to any of the four treatments studied compared with those samples left untreated. A positive relationship was noted between protein concentration and tear volume for treated, untreated, and combined tear samples. For contact lens samples, there was a significant reduction in the amount of deposited protein removed when comparing acetone, trichloroacetic acid, and urea with TFA/ACN. A second extraction from contact lenses assigned to the urea and TFA/ACN groups yielded a significant amount of additional protein compared with the amount removed initially.

CONCLUSIONS

Tear samples subjected to any of the evaluated chemical treatments provided significantly less protein than untreated samples. For contact lenses, TFA/ACN extraction provided the highest yield of available protein out of the four treatments evaluated.