Extraction versus <i>In Situ</i> Techniques for Measuring Surface‐Adsorbed Lysozyme
Bibliographic record
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 1 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, total extracted activity is greater than total in situ activity, which, in turn, is greater than surface activity. After 1 week, etafilcon A had the highest extracted activity at 137 μg/lens, followed by omafilcon A, balafilcon A, comfilcon A, senofilcon A, and lotrafilcon B at 27.4, 2.85, 2.02, 0.46, and 0.27 μg/lens, respectively. Micrococcal cell adhesion was greatest on contact lenses with high contact angles, such as balafilcon A, omafilcon A, and senofilcon A and lowest on contact lenses with low contact angles, such as etafilcon A, comfilcon A, and lotrafilcon B. Subsequent removal/prevention 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 has measured and made direct comparisons between two established techniques for measuring the activity of adsorbed lysozyme. The extraction technique determines the activity of underlying layers of lysozyme or lysozyme within the matrix of the material. Conversely, the in situ technique allows conclusions to be drawn about only the biologically relevant lysozyme including the activity of just the outer surface of adsorbed lysozyme.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".