Coculture with intraocular lens material-activated macrophages induces an inflammatory phenotype in lens epithelial cells
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cataracts are the leading cause of blindness worldwide, requiring surgical implantation of an intraocular lens. Despite evidence of leukocyte ingress into the postoperative lens, few studies have investigated the leukocyte response to intraocular lens materials. A novel coculture model was developed to examine macrophage activation by hydrophilic acrylic (poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate)) and hydrophobic acrylic (polymethylmethacrylate) commercial intraocular lens. The human monocytic cell line THP-1 was differentiated into macrophages and cocultured with human lens epithelial cell line (HLE-B3) with or without an intraocular lens for one, two, four, or six days. Using flow cytometry and confocal microscopy, expression of the macrophage activation marker CD54 (intercellular adhesion molecule-1) and production of reactive oxygen species via the fluorogenic probe 2',7'-dichlorodihydrofluorescein diacetate were examined in macrophages. α-Smooth muscle actin, a transdifferentiation marker, was characterized in lens epithelial cells. The poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) intraocular lens prevented adhesion but induced significant macrophage activation (p < 0.03) versus control (no intraocular lens), while the polymethylmethacrylate intraocular lens enabled adhesion and multinucleated fusion, but induced no significant activation. Coculture with either intraocular lens increased reactive oxygen species production in macrophages after one day (p < 0.03) and increased expression of α-smooth muscle actin in HLE B-3 after six days, although only poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) induced a significant difference versus control (p < 0.01). Our results imply that-contrary to prior uveal biocompatibility understanding-macrophage adherence is not necessary for a strong inflammatory response to an intraocular lens, with hydrophilic surfaces inducing higher activation than hydrophobic surfaces. These findings provide a new method of inquiry into uveal biocompatibility, specifically through the quantification of cell-surface markers of leukocyte activation.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".