Influence of protein deposition on bacterial adhesion to contact lenses

Optometry and Vision Science

Volumn 88, Issue 8, 2011, Pages 959-966

  Subbaraman, Lakshman N ^a,e   Borazjani, Roya ^b   Zhu, Hua ^a   Zhao, Zhenjun ^d   Jones, Lyndon ^c   Willcox, Mark D P ^a  

^a BRIEN HOLDEN VISION INSTITUTE   (Australia)

^b ALCON RESEARCH LTD   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NEW SOUTH WALES   (Australia)

^e MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Bacterial attachment; contact lens; protein deposition; Pseudomonas; silicone hydrogel; Staphylococcus

Indexed keywords

BACTERIAL ATTACHMENT; PROTEIN DEPOSITION; PSEUDOMONAS; SILICONE HYDROGEL; STAPHYLOCOCCUS;

ADHESION; BACTERIA; COATINGS; CONTACT LENSES; ENZYMES; HYDROGELS; SILICONES;

BACTERIOLOGY;

PROTEIN;

ARTICLE; BACTERIAL COUNT; BACTERIUM ADHERENCE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DRUG EFFECT; GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND AGING; HUMAN; HYDROPHILIC CONTACT LENS; MICROBIOLOGY; PROTEIN BINDING; PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA; STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS;

BACTERIAL ADHESION; COLONY COUNT, MICROBIAL; CONTACT LENSES, HYDROPHILIC; HUMANS; PROTEIN BINDING; PROTEINS; PSEUDOMONAS AERUGINOSA; STAPHYLOCOCCUS AUREUS;

EID: 80051546721     PISSN: 10405488     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821ffccb     Document Type: Article

References (56)

1. Sankaridurg PR, Sharma S, Willcox M, Sweeney DF, Naduvilath TJ, Holden BA, Rao GN. Colonization ofhydrogel lenses with Strepto-coccuspneumoniae: riskofdevelopmentof corneal infiltrates. Cornea 1999;18:289-95. (Pubitemid 29205553)
2. Willcox MD, Holden BA. Contact lens related corneal infections. Biosci Rep 2001;21:445-61. (Pubitemid 34211829)
3. Willcox MD. Pseudomonas aeruginosa infection and inflammation during contact lens wear: a review. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:273-8. (Pubitemid 46624851)
4. Sack RA, Tan KO, Tan A. Diurnal tear cycle: evidence for a nocturnal inflammatory constitutive tear fluid. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1992;33:626-40.
5. Willcox MD, Sankaridurg P, Zhu H, Hume EB, Cole N, Conibear T, Glasson M, Harmis N, Stapleton F. Inflammation and infection and the effects of the closed eye. In: Sweeney D, ed. Silicone Hydrogels: Continuous Wear Contact Lenses, 2nd ed. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2004:90-125.
6. Flanagan JL, Willcox MD. Role of lactoferrin in the tear film. Biochimie 2009;91:35-43.
7. Leahy CD, Mandell RB, Lin ST. Initial in vivo tear protein deposi-tion on individual hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1990;67: 504-11. (Pubitemid 20289224)
8. Lin ST, Mandell RB, Leahy CD, Newell JO. Protein accumulation on disposable extended wear lenses. CLAO J 1991;17:44-50.
9. Jones L, Senchyna M, Glasier MA, Schickler J, Forbes I, Louie D, May C. Lysozyme and lipid deposition on silicone hydrogel contact lens materials. Eye Contact Lens 2003;29:S75-9.
10. Jones L, Mann A, Evans K, Franklin V, Tighe B. An in vivo compar-ison of the kinetics of protein and lipid deposition on group II and group IV frequent-replacement contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2000; 77:503-10.
11. Zhao Z, Wei X, Aiwarga Y, Carnt NA, Garrett Q, Willcox MD. Proteomic analysis of protein deposits on worn daily wear silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Mol Vis 2008;14:2016-24.
12. Green-Church KB, Nichols JJ. Mass spectrometry-based proteomic analyses ofcontact lens deposition. Mol Vis 2008;14:291-7. (Pubitemid 351279919)
13. Butrus SI, Klotz SA. Contact lens surface deposits increase the adhe-sion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Curr Eye Res 1990;9:717-24. (Pubitemid 20312994)
14. Klotz SA, Misra RP, Butrus SI. Contactlenswearenhancesadherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and binding oflectins to the cornea. Cornea 1990;9:266-70. (Pubitemid 20298641)
15. Aswad MI,John T, Barza M, Kenyon K, Baum J. Bacterial adherence to extended wear soft contact lenses. Ophthalmology 1990;97: 296-302. (Pubitemid 20087975)
16. Thakur A, Chauhan A, Willcox MD. Effect of lysozyme on adhesion and toxin release by Staphylococcus aureus. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1999;27:224-7. (Pubitemid 29429693)
17. Williams TJ, Schneider RP, Willcox MD. The effect of protein-coated contact lenses on the adhesion and viability of gram negative bacteria. Curr Eye Res 2003;27:227-35. (Pubitemid 37315482)
18. Taylor RL, Willcox MD, Williams TJ, Verran J. Modulation of bacterial adhesion to hydrogel contact lenses by albumin. Optom Vis Sci 1998;75:23-9. (Pubitemid 28065170)
19. Willcox MD, Harmis N, Cowell, Williams T, Holden. Bacterial interactions with contact lenses; effects oflens material, lens wear and microbial physiology. Biomaterials 2001;22:3235-47. (Pubitemid 32923330)
20. Dart JK, Badenoch PR. Bacterial adherence to contact lenses. CLAO J 1986;12:220-4.
21. Butrus SI, Klotz SA, Misra RP. The adherence of Pseudomonasaerugi-nosa to soft contact lenses. Ophthalmology 1987;94:1310-4. (Pubitemid 17149342)
22. Lawin-Brussel CA, Refojo MF, Leong FL, Kenyon KR. Pseudomo-nas attachment to low-water and high-water, ionic and nonionic, new and rabbit-worn soft contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991; 32:657-62.
23. Boles SF, Refojo MF, Leong FL. Attachment of Pseudomonas to human-worn, disposable etafilcon A contact lenses. Cornea 1992; 11:47-52.
24. Hume EB, Willcox MD. Adhesion and growth of Serratia marcescens on artificial closed eye tears soaked hydrogel contact lenses. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1997; 25(suppl 1):S39-41. (Pubitemid 27337279)
25. Zhang S, Borazjani RN, Salamone JC, Ahearn DG, Crow SA, Jr., Pierce GE. In vitro deposition of lysozyme on etafilcon A and balafil-con A hydrogel contact lenses: effects on adhesion and survival of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Cont Lens Ante-rior Eye 2005;28:113-9. (Pubitemid 41440041)
26. Subbaraman LN, Glasier MA, Senchyna M, Sheardown H, Jones L. Kinetics of in vitro lysozyme deposition on silicone hydrogel, PMMA, and FDA groups I, II, and IV contact lens materials. Curr Eye Res 2006;31:787-96. (Pubitemid 44581302)
27. Chow LM, Subbaraman LN, Sheardown H, Jones L. Kinetics of in vitro lactoferrin deposition on silicone hydrogel and FDA group II and group IV hydrogel contact lens materials. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed 2009;20:71-82.
28. Subbaraman LN, Glasier MA, Sheardown H, Jones L. Efficacy of an extraction solvent used to quantify albumin deposition on hydrogel contact lens materials. Eye Contact Lens 2009;35:76-80.
29. Fleiszig SM, Zaidi TS, Preston MJ, Grout M, Evans DJ, Pier GB. Relationship between cytotoxicity and corneal epithelial cell invasion by clinical isolates of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Infect Immun 1996; 64:2288-94. (Pubitemid 26165690)
30. Duran JA, Refojo MF, Gipson IK, Kenyon KR. Pseudomonas attach-ment to new hydrogel contact lenses. Arch Ophthalmol 1987;105: 106-9. (Pubitemid 17207571)
31. Stern G, Zam Z. The pathogenesis ofcontact lens-associated Pseu-domonas aeruginosa corneal ulceration. Cornea 1986;5:41-5.
32. Mowrey-Mc Kee MF, Monnat K, Sampson HJ, Smith CM, Davies GA, Mandt L, Proskin HM. Microbial contamination ofhydrophilic contact lenses. Part I: Quantitation ofmicrobes on patient worn-and-handledlenses. CLAO J 1992;18:87-91.
33. Miller MJ, Ahearn DG. Adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to hydrophilic contact lenses and other substrata. J Clin Microbiol 1987;25:1392-7. (Pubitemid 17098706)
34. Kijlstra A. The role of lactoferrin in the nonspecific immune response on the ocularsurface. Reg Immunol 1990;3:193-7.
35. Bellamy W, Takase M, Wakabayashi H, Kawase K, Tomita M. An-tibacterial spectrum of lactoferricin B, a potent bactericidal peptide derived from the N-terminal region of bovine lactoferrin. J Appl Bacteriol 1992;73:472-9.
36. Yamauchi K, Tomita M, Giehl TJ, Ellison RT, III. Antibacterial activity of lactoferrin and a pepsin-derived lactoferrin peptide frag-ment. Infect Immun 1993;61:719-28. (Pubitemid 23030865)
37. Ellison RT, III, Giehl TJ, La Force FM. Damage of the outer mem-brane ofenteric gram-negative bacteria by lactoferrin and transferrin. Infect Immun 1988;56:2774-81. (Pubitemid 18259927)
38. 2 + . J Gen Microbiol 1990;136: 1437-46. (Pubitemid 20238484)
39. Aguilera O, Ostolaza H, Quiros LM, Fierro JF. Permeabilizing action of an antimicrobial lactoferricin-derived peptide on bacterial and ar-tificial membranes. FEBS Lett 1999;462:273-7.
40. Cowell BA, Willcox MD, Schneider RP. Growth of gram-negative bacteria in a simulated ocular environment. Aust N Z J Ophthalmol 1997;25(suppl 1):S23-6. (Pubitemid 27337274)
41. Berman ER. Biochemistry of the Eye. New York, NY: Plenum Press; 1991.
42. Osserman EF Canfield RE, Beychok S, eds. Lysozyme. New York, NY: Academic Press; 1974.
43. Sack RA, Jones B, Antignani A, Libow R, Harvey H. Specificity and biological activity of the protein deposited on the hydrogel surface. Relationship of polymer structure to biofilm formation. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1987;28:842-9. (Pubitemid 17070691)
44. Senchyna M, Jones L, Louie D, May C, Forbes I, Glasier MA. Quan-titative and conformational characterization of lysozyme deposited on balafilcon and etafilcon contact lens materials. Curr Eye Res 2004; 28:25-36. (Pubitemid 38161171)
45. Suwala M, Glasier MA, Subbaraman LN, Jones L. Quantity and conformation of lysozyme deposited on conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lens materials using an in vitro model. Eye Contact Lens 2007;33:138-43. (Pubitemid 46763363)
46. Subbaraman LN, Jones L. Kinetics of lysozyme activity recovered from conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lens materials. J Bio-mater Sci Polym Ed 2010;21:343-58.
47. Subbaraman LN, Woods J, Teichroeb JH, Jones L. Protein deposi-tion on a lathe-cut silicone hydrogel contact lens material. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:244-50.
48. Subbaraman LN, Bayer S, Glasier MA, Lorentz H, Senchyna M, Jones L. Rewetting drops containing surface active agents improve the clinical performance ofsilicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2006;83:143-51.
49. Kodjikian L, Burillon C, Roques C, Pellon G, Renaud FN, Hart-mann D, Freney J Intraocular lenses, bacterial adhesion and endoph-thalmitis prevention: a review. Biomed Mater Eng 2004;14: 395-409. (Pubitemid 40916712)
50. Pascual A, Fleer A, Westerdaal NA, Verhoef J. Modulation ofadher-ence ofcoagulase-negative staphylococci to Teflon catheters in vitro. Eur J Clin Microbiol 1986;5:518-22. (Pubitemid 17202049)
51. Kodjikian L, Casoli-Bergeron E, Malet F, Janin-Manificat H, Freney J, Burillon C, Colin J, Steghens JP. Bacterial adhesion to conven-tional hydrogel and new silicone-hydrogel contact lens materials. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008;246:267-73.
52. Henriques M, Sousa C, Lira M, Elisabete M, Oliveira R, Azeredo J Adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus epidermidis to silicone-hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2005;82:446-50. (Pubitemid 40911481)
53. Santos L, Rodrigues D, Lira M, Oliveira ME, Oliveira R, Vilar EY, Azeredo J. The influence of surface treatment on hydrophobicity, protein adsorption and microbial colonisation of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2007;30:183-8. (Pubitemid 46971882)
54. Stapleton F, Dart JK, Matheson M, Woodward EG. Bacterial adher-ence and glycocalyx formation on unworn hydrogel lenses. J Br Con-tact Lens Assoc 1993;16:113-7.
55. Miller MJ, Wilson LA, Ahearn DG. Effects ofprotein, mucin, and human tears on adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to hydrophilic contact lenses.J Clin Microbiol 1988;26:513-7. (Pubitemid 18062111)
56. Szczotka-Flynn L, Diaz M. Risk of corneal inflammatory events with silicone hydrogel and low Dk hydrogel extended contact lens wear: a meta-analysis. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:247-56. (Pubitemid 46624849)