Emch Andrew J, Nichols Jason J
College of Optometry, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210, USA.
Optom Vis Sci. 2009 Feb;86(2):E123-31. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e318194eb01.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the quantity and identify the proteins extracted from two different types of silicone hydrogel contact lenses by several multipurpose care solutions after 1 day of wear.
Ten subjects were recruited to wear galyfilcon A lenses (Acuvue Advance, Vistakon) followed by lotrafilcon B lenses (O2 Optix, CIBA Vision) each for four consecutive days. Each day, subjects inserted a new pair of lenses for 8 h of wear after which both lenses were removed using forceps (lenses were not rubbed or rinsed after removal). Lenses were pooled in one of four commercially available care solutions for a 24-h soak followed by precipitation, resuspension in water, and quantification by Bradford assay and identification by mass spectrometry.
Protein recovery from care solutions was as follows (quantities are in microg/lens): AQuify (galyfilcon A: 0.56, lotrafilcon B: 1.24), Complete MoisturePlus (galyfilcon A: 1.44, lotrafilcon B: 1.47), Opti-Free Express (galyfilcon A: 2.31, lotrafilcon B: 5.67), and ReNu MoistureLoc (galyfilcon A: 1.17, lotrafilcon B: 4.38). For each care solution, greater quantities of protein were removed from lotrafilcon B (3.19 +/- 2.19 microg/lens) than from galyfilcon A (1.37 +/- 0.72 microg/lens). Lactoferrin, lysozyme, and lipocalin were the most commonly identified, whereas various keratin compounds and other unique proteins were also detected.
Opti-Free Express was consistently associated with the more efficient removal of proteins from these silicone hydrogels. More total protein was removed from lotrafilcon B than from galyfilcon A (approximately 2 x more protein) for all four care solutions, and 12 total unique protein species were recovered from galyfilcon A, whereas only 10 were recovered from lotrafilcon B. The higher quantities of protein extracted from lotrafilcon B may be due to stronger protein binding with this material and/or to differences in solution efficacy.
本研究旨在调查佩戴1天后，几种多功能护理液从两种不同类型的硅水凝胶隐形眼镜中提取的蛋白质数量，并鉴定这些蛋白质。
招募10名受试者，先连续4天佩戴加丽菲康A镜片（爱尔康傲滴，视康），之后连续4天佩戴乐透菲康B镜片（视康O2 Optix）。每天，受试者插入一副新镜片佩戴8小时，之后用镊子取下两片镜片（取下后镜片不揉搓或冲洗）。将镜片集中于四种市售护理液之一中浸泡24小时，然后进行沉淀、在水中重悬，通过考马斯亮蓝法进行定量，并通过质谱法进行鉴定。
护理液中蛋白质的回收率如下（数量单位为微克/镜片）：爱可丽（加丽菲康A：0.56，乐透菲康B：1.24）、全润护理液（加丽菲康A：1.44，乐透菲康B：1.47）、傲滴恒润（加丽菲康A：2.31，乐透菲康B：5.67）、润明水凝护理液（加丽菲康A：1.17，乐透菲康B：4.38）。对于每种护理液，从乐透菲康B中去除的蛋白质数量（3.19±2.19微克/镜片）均多于加丽菲康A（1.37±0.72微克/镜片）。乳铁蛋白、溶菌酶和视黄醇结合蛋白是最常鉴定出的蛋白质，同时还检测到了各种角蛋白化合物和其他独特蛋白质。
傲滴恒润始终与从这些硅水凝胶中更有效地去除蛋白质相关。对于所有四种护理液，从乐透菲康B中去除的总蛋白量均多于加丽菲康A（约为其两倍），从加丽菲康A中回收了12种独特的蛋白质种类，而从乐透菲康B中仅回收了10种。从乐透菲康B中提取的蛋白质数量较多可能是由于该材料与蛋白质的结合更强和/或溶液功效存在差异。
