Quantity and Conformation of Lysozyme Deposited on Conventional and Silicone Hydrogel Contact Lens Materials Using an In Vitro Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine the activity of hen egg lysozyme (HEL) deposited on conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lens materials by using an in vitro model. METHODS: ACUVUE 2 (etafilcon A), PureVision (balafilcon A), ACUVUE Advance (galyfilcon A), Focus NIGHT & DAY (lotrafilcon A), O2 Optix (lotrafilcon B), Proclear (omafilcon A), and ACUVUE OASYS (senofilcon A) contact lenses were deposited in vitro in a phosphate-buffered solution (PBS) containing 2 mg/mL HEL. Lenses were briefly rinsed in PBS to remove unbound material and extracted in a mixture of acetonitrile and trifluoroacetic acid. After lyophilization, extracts were examined for lysozyme activity by micrococcal assay and total protein by Western blot. RESULTS: In terms of total protein accumulation, ACUVUE 2 showed the most, with 1,800 microg per lens. Proclear was next, with 68 microg per lens, and Focus NIGHT & DAY showed the least, with 2 microg per lens. ACUVUE Advance, ACUVUE OASYS, and O2 Optix accumulated similar amounts of lysozyme, at approximately 6 microg per lens. Lysozyme deposited on ACUVUE 2 showed the greatest activity (91% +/- 5%), and this result was statistically different from all other lens types (P<0.001). Lysozyme deposited on Focus NIGHT & DAY (24% +/- 5%) and O2 Optix (23% +/- 11%) showed the lowest activity. Lysozyme deposits on other lens materials showed intermediate activity (ACUVUE Advance, 60% +/- 15%; ACUVUE OASYS, 51% +/- 9%; PureVision, 58% +/- 8%; and Proclear, 38% +/- 3%). CONCLUSIONS: Silicone hydrogel lenses acquire less lysozyme deposit than conventional group II (Proclear) or group IV (ACUVUE 2) lenses do, and the levels of activity of the lysozyme are highly variable between materials.
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".