Skip Navigation LinksHome > August 2011 - Volume 88 - Issue 8 > Effect of Cholesterol Deposition on Bacterial Adhesion to Co...
Optometry & Vision Science:
doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e31821cc683
Original Article

Effect of Cholesterol Deposition on Bacterial Adhesion to Contact Lenses

Babaei Omali, Negar*; Zhu, Hua†; Zhao, Zhenjun†; Ozkan, Jerome*; Xu, Banglao†; Borazjani, Roya†; Willcox, Mark D. P.†

Free Access
Article Outline
Collapse Box

Author Information

*BOptom

PhD

Brien Holden Vision Institute (NBO, HZ, ZZ, JO, BX, MDPW), School of Optometry and Vision Science, University of New South Wales (NBO, HZ, MDPW), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, and Research, Alcon Labs, Fort Worth, Texas (RB).

This work was supported, in part, by a grant from Alcon Laboratories Inc., Ft. Worth, Texas.

This paper was presented at the 2010 Annual Meetings of the Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology in Fort Lauderdale, Florida and British Contact Lens Association in Birmingham, UK.

Received October 18, 2010; accepted March 10, 2011.

Negar Babaei Omali; Brien Holden Vision Institute; Level 5, North Wing, RMB, Gate 14, Barker Street; University of New South Wales; Sydney 2052, NSW; Australia; e-mail: n.babaei@brienholdenvision.org

Collapse Box

Abstract

Purpose. To examine the effect of cholesterol on the adhesion of bacteria to silicone hydrogel contact lenses.

Methods. Contact lenses, collected from subjects wearing Acuvue Oasys or PureVision lenses, were extracted in chloroform:methanol (1:1, v/v) and amount of cholesterol was estimated by thin-layer chromatography. Unworn lenses were soaked in cholesterol, and the numbers of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strains or Staphylococcus aureus strains that adhered to the lenses were measured. Cholesterol was tested for effects on bacterial growth by incubating bacteria in medium containing cholesterol.

Results. From ex vivo PureVision lenses, 3.4 ± 0.3 μg/lens cholesterol was recovered, and from Acuvue Oasys lenses, 2.4 ± 0.2 to 1.0 ± 0.1 μg/lens cholesterol was extracted. Cholesterol did not alter the total or viable adhesion of any strain of P. aeruginosa or S. aureus (p > 0.05). However, worn PureVision lenses reduced the numbers of viable cells of P. aeruginosa (5.8 ± 0.4 log units) compared with unworn lenses (6.4 ± 0.2 log units, p = 0.001). Similarly, there were fewer numbers of S. aureus 031 adherent to worn PureVision (3.05 ± 0.8 log units) compared with unworn PureVision (4.6 ± 0.3 log units, p = 0.0001). Worn Acuvue Oasys lenses did not affect bacterial adhesion. Cholesterol showed no effect on the growth of any test strain.

Conclusions. Although cholesterol has been shown to adsorb to contact lenses during wear, this lipid does not appear to modulate bacterial adhesion to a lens surface.

The tear film coats the hydrophobic surface of the epithelium and consists of three distinct layers: outermost lipid layer, the middle aqueous layer (containing electrolytes, proteins, enzymes, and other components), and the mucin layer.1,2 The lipid layer, which is primarily secreted by meibomian gland comprises two phases, a thin polar phase and a thick non-polar phase.3–5 The polar phase consists mainly of phospholipids,3,6 and the non-polar phase consists of cholesterol and wax esters.5 It is believed that the lipid layer prevents evaporation of the tear fluid and facilitates movement of the eyelid during blinking.6–8

Immediately after insertion in the eye, contact lenses absorb a variety of tear film components including lipids and proteins.9–13 These deposition cause contact lens spoilage, which is believed to be the important factor in clinical complications such as discomfort,14,15 reduced visual acuity,16,17 dryness,14,15,18 and bacterial contamination of the contact lens surface.19–27 The degree of tear film deposition on contact lenses is affected by lens wear basis,28–30 lens material,29,31,32 and types of lens care system used.29,33 Because of relative hydrophobicity, silicone hydrogel contact lenses have been shown to adsorb more lipid compared with conventional contact lenses. However, compared with conventional lenses they accumulate extremely low levels of protein.13,30,32,34

A number of studies have reported the presence of lipids in the deposits of contact lenses.9,10,29,31,32,35–37 Lipid deposits consist of oleic acid, oleic acid methyl ester, and cholesterol on worn contact lenses.32 Cholesterol has been shown to be one of the most frequently detected lipids on silicone hydrogel lenses.10,29,32 All silicone hydrogel lens types tested in vitro adsorbed significantly higher amount of cholesterol compared with phosphatidyl ethanolamine.38 In vivo, lens polymer and care solutions can affect the amount of cholesterol deposition onto silicone hydrogel contact lenses during wear.29

Several reports have shown that tear film protein deposits,19,21,23,25,39 lens material,19,40,41 duration of wear,19,26,42 and surface roughness43,44 can affect the ability of bacteria to bind to the contact lens surface. Pseudomonas aeruginosa adhesion was increased when albumin was coated on to etafilcon A or polymacon lenses.25 The adhesion of Staphylococcus aureus can be either increased or remained unchanged by adsorption of lysozyme to the lens surface.23,27 To date, few studies have examined the bacterial adhesion to silicone hydrogel contact lenses,41,45–47 and none of these reports have investigated the effect of lipid deposition on bacterial adhesion to contact lenses.

In this study, we analyzed in vivo cholesterol deposits on two types of silicone hydrogel lenses in combination with lens care solutions. We further examined the effect that cholesterol adsorption to contact lens had on bacterial adhesion by comparing the adhesion of strains of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus to clean contact lenses, and to contact lenses soaked in cholesterol solution in vitro. Results of this study will be valuable data indicating whether cholesterol as frequently detected tear component on silicone hydrogel contact lenses will influence the rate of bacterial contamination of the lens surface.

Back to Top | Article Outline

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Contact Lenses and Lens Care Solutions

The commercially available silicone hydrogel contact lenses used in this study were PureVision (Balafilcon A; Bausch and Lomb, Rochester, NY), a silicone hydrogel FDA group III ionic lens, which is surface treated by gas plasma and composed of a 36% water content silicone N-vinyl pyrrolidone polymer, and Acuvue Oasys (Senofilcon A; Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, Jacksonville, FL), an FDA group I non-ionic lens, which has no surface modification but contains polyvinyl pyrrolidone. The commercially available multipurpose solutions Opti-Free Replenish (containing polyquad and Aldox as preservatives, and Tetronic 1304 as a surfactant; Alcon, Fort Worth, TX), and Menicare Soft (Epica Cold) (containing polyhexanide as a disinfectant and macrogolglycerol hydroxystearate 60 as a detergent, Menicon Co Ltd., Japan) and AQuify (containing polyhexanide as a disinfectant and poloxamer 407 as surfactant, CIBA Vision, Atlanta, GA) were used for lens disinfection and cleaning.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Collection of Daily and Extended Wear Contact Lenses

Contact lenses were collected from a group of 22 participants in a randomized, open label, parallel group, and cross-over study (Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12608000557336), consisting of 1-month daily wear (DW) for each lens care solution and 1-month extended wear. Participants were randomly allocated to bilateral wear of either PureVision or Acuvue Oasys contact lenses for the duration of the study (3 months in total). Each group was randomly assigned to use either Opti-Free Replenish or Menicare Soft lens care solutions for the first month of DW, and then swapped the types of lens care solutions used for the second month of DW. Data for the effect of use of AQuify solution on amount of cholesterol deposited on test lens types were obtained from a previous data set that used the same clinical and laboratory techniques as outlined herein.29 For bacterial adhesion assay, contact lenses were collected from subjects who wore PureVision (n = 22) or Acuvue Oasys (n = 8) as DW in conjunction with AQuify. Lens replacement schedule was fortnightly for Acuvue Oasys and monthly for PureVision. The worn contact lenses were collected in 2-mL phosphate-buffered saline solution (PBS, pH 7.4) once they were removed from the patients' eyes, kept temporarily at 4°C, then transferred to −80°C before extraction of deposits. Latex non-powdered surgical gloves were applied to remove the contact lenses from participants' eyes to prevent contamination from the hands. All protocols for this part of the study were approved by the Institutional Human Ethics Review Committee and complied with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Determination of Cholesterol from Worn and Cholesterol-Soaked Contact Lenses

Cholesterol was purchased from Sigma Aldrich (Castle Hill, NSW, Australia). Aliquots were taken from stock (solubilized in methanol) to make cholesterol solutions in PBS at 37°C (at concentrations 40, 20, 10, 5, 2.5, 1.25 μg/mL).38 Five worn or four lenses soaked in cholesterol were pooled together for extraction. Lenses were blotted dry and placed into a glass vial containing 3 mL of extraction solvent methanol:chloroform (1:1, v/v) and incubated at ambient temperature overnight (18 h) with gentle shaking. The extraction solutions were then transferred to new glass vial and evaporated under a gentle stream of nitrogen gas and reconstituted in 80 μL of methanol:chloroform (1:1, v/v). Extracts were stored at −80°C for analysis. Extraction was repeated twice for worn contact lenses and three times for each type of lens soaked in each concentration of cholesterol.

Thin layer chromatography (TLC) analysis was adapted from those of Bontempo and Rapp.29,48 In brief, 20 μl of lipid extract or cholesterol standards were loaded onto TLC plate (highly purified silica gel plates incorporate a gypsum/polymer binder, Sigma Aldrich). The plate was run sequentially in hexane, benzene, and then hexane:ether:acetic acid (30:20:0.5). After drying, the plate was sprayed with 25% sulfuric acid and the color of the bands was developed by heating the plate at 100°C for 1 h. The image of separated bands on plate was scanned by using GS-800 calibrated densitometer (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) and bands were analyzed and quantified by using Quantity One software (Bio-Rad Laboratories) based on the known concentrations of standards.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Adsorption of Cholesterol In Vitro to Contact Lenses

Four lenses of each type were cycled in various concentrations of cholesterol aiming to achieve the similar amount of deposition to worn lenses.29 Each lens was removed from the package and washed three times with 1 mL PBS for each wash in a 24-well plate. Each lens was soaked in 1 mL of PBS containing various concentrations of cholesterol (Table 2) for 24 h at 37°C as one cycle. Cycling was repeated as designated (Table 2) and fresh cholesterol solutions were used for each cycle. After cycling, lenses were removed from cholesterol solution and washed three times in 1 mL PBS for each wash. Lenses were then placed in 1.5 mL microfuge tubes and stored at −80°C immediately for further extraction and determination of cholesterol adsorption as described above.

Table 2
Table 2
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Bacterial Adhesion to Cholesterol-Soaked Contact Lenses

P. aeruginosa strains 6294 (MK isolate), 6206 (MK isolate), GSU-3 (MK isolate), and S. aureus strains 031 (CLPU isolate), 038 (MK isolate), and ATCC 6538 (human isolate) were used in the adhesion experiment. Strains were grown in 10 mL minimal medium [1.0 g D-glucose, 7.0 g K2HPO4, 2.0 g KH2PO4, 0.5 g sodium citrate, 1.0 g (NH4)2SO4, and 0.1 g MgSO4 in 1 liter distilled H2O, pH 7.2]45 (for viable adhesion) or minimal medium containing 3H-uridine (0.2%, for total adhesion) overnight at 37°C. Bacterial cells were collected and washed by centrifugation and resuspended in sterile PBS to an optical density of 0.1 at 660 nm [108 colony forming unit (CFU)/mL], then 10-fold serially diluted in PBS to a final concentration of 107 CFU/mL. Worn and unworn lenses (n = 3 for each repeat) with or without cholesterol soaking (Table 2) were washed three times in PBS. Lenses were then transferred into each well of a 24-well tissue culture plate and inoculated with 1 mL of bacterial suspension at 37°C for 18 h. For recovery of viable cells, each lens was aseptically removed and washed three times, then placed in plastic vials containing 2 mL PBS and a sterile magnetic stirrer24 and vortexed for 1 min at maximum speed to detach adhered bacterial cells. The cell suspensions were serially (10-fold) diluted. Dilutions were plated onto nutrient agar and incubated at 37°C for 18 h. After incubation, numbers of CFU were counted. Total number of bacteria adhered on lens surfaces were estimated after measuring the radioactivity of lenses using a β scintillation counter (Wallac 1400 DSA) and converting the radioactivity into the numbers of cells by using a standard curve. Standard curves were plotted for each experiment from radioactivity measurements of known counts of the radiolabeled bacteria. Lenses without cholesterol treatment and immersed in PBS were included in the adhesion assay as controls. Triplicates of each lens type were included in each adhesion experiment and the experiment was repeated three times for each challenge strain to collect the data from a total of nine lenses for each group.

Back to Top | Article Outline
Effect of Cholesterol on Bacterial Growth

Cholesterol was examined for possible effects on bacterial growth. P. aeruginosa 6294 and S. aureus strains 031, 038, ATCC6538 were grown in minimal medium containing cholesterol (at concentrations 40, 20, 10, 5, 2.5, 1.25, and 0 μg/mL) overnight. Bacteria were then enumerated by viable count.49

Back to Top | Article Outline
Statistical Analysis

One-way analysis of variance with post hoc multiple comparisons were adjusted using Benferroni to compare the amounts of cholesterol absorbed to lenses in vitro. Pilot experiments on unworn lenses indicated that a minimum of three lenses were needed to show a difference of 0.5 log with a 95% confidence and 80% power; therefore, we have performed three repeated measurements, and each measurement was accomplished with extract from four pooled lenses. Log transformed CFU/lens (for viable cells) or cells/lens (for total counts) data were compared with various concentrations of cholesterol-soaked and unsoaked lenses using Linear Mixed Model (a form of the General Linear Mixed Model) for each strain and lens type. Pilot experiments on unworn lenses indicated that for bacterial adhesion assay a minimum of seven lenses were needed in each arm to show a difference of 0.5 log with a 95% confidence and 80% power, and we used eight worn Acuvue Oasys, 22 worn PureVision, and total number of nine lenses for each group of cholesterol-soaked and unsoaked lenses. Linear mixed model was used to account for the replicates within a same group of samples. Post hoc multiple comparisons were adjusted using Bonferroni correction when compared with one control category (unsoaked). The bacterial growth in various cholesterol concentrations was compared using one-way analysis of variance (Post hoc multiple comparisons were adjusted using Dunnett correction when compared with one control category.). Pilot experiments indicated that a minimum of three repeats were needed in each arm to show a difference of 0.5 log with a 95% confidence and 80% power; therefore, we have performed three repeats. SPSS program 15 was used for all analysis, and p value of <0.05 was considered significant.

Back to Top | Article Outline

RESULTS

Ex Vivo Cholesterol Determination

Cholesterol deposition on each group of lens is listed in Table 1. Overall, there were greater levels of cholesterol deposited on PureVision than on Acuvue Oasys lenses irrespective of lens care solutions used and wear schedules. When combined with Opti-Free Replenish solution, PureVision accumulated more cholesterol (3.4 ± 0.2 μg/lens) than Acuvue Oasys (1.0 ± 0.1 μg/lens) lenses. Cholesterol deposited more on extended-wear PureVision (5.1 ± 0.5 μg/lens) lenses compared with extended-wear Acuvue Oasys (2.2 ± 0.1 μg/lens). Lenses that had been used with Opti-Free Replenish solution had less cholesterol extracted from Acuvue Oasys compared with those when Menicare Soft solution was used. Using AQuify gave lowest levels of cholesterol extracted from Acuvue Oasys lenses, but a relatively high level of cholesterol extracted from PureVision lenses29 (Table 1).

Table 1
Table 1
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
In Vitro Cholesterol Adsorption

An example of TLC analysis of lens extracts from cholesterol-soaked PureVision, Acuvue Oasys, and cholesterol standards are shown in Fig. 1. Each lens extract showed a major band (band A in Fig. 1) located in the same position to cholesterol standard. On the basis of the standard curve, the levels of cholesterol adsorbed to the PureVision and Acuvue Oasys lenses in vitro were quantified and shown in Table 2. The in vitro adsorptions of cholesterol to both PureVision and Acuvue Oasys (Table 2) were dose and cycle number dependent. For a given cycle, the increases of cholesterol adsorption were seen in both lens types when soaked in increased concentrations of cholesterol solutions. Increasing the cycling times (i.e., from 1 to 2 cycles) of test lenses in a same concentration of cholesterol solution (i.e., 20 μg/mL) increased adsorption of cholesterol to PureVision lens from 5.6 to 10.8 μg/lens, which was not significantly different (p = 0.73; Table 2). When cycled in the same conditions (i.e., one cycle at concentrations of 20 or 10 μg/mL), PureVision adsorbed a similar amount of cholesterol (5.6 or 3.2 μg/lens, respectively) to that on Acuvue Oasys (5.9 or 3.3 μg/lens, respectively, p > 0.05, Table 2).

Figure 1
Figure 1
Image Tools

At cholesterol concentrations ranging from 10 to 20 μg/mL for PureVision and from 1.25 to 20 μg/mL for Acuvue Oasys lenses, the amount of cholesterol adsorption to PureVision (3.2, 5.6, and 10.8 μg/lens) and to Acuvue Oasys (0.5, 1.2, 3.3, and 5.9 μg/lens) was similar to that on worn lenses (Table 2).29

Back to Top | Article Outline
Effect of Cholesterol Adsorption on Bacterial Adhesion

Fig. 2 shows the adhesion of P. aeruginosa 6294 to unsoaked, cholesterol-soaked, and worn PureVision and Acuvue Oasys contact lenses. There was no difference between the total and viable counts for unsoaked lenses or for each group of cholesterol-soaked lenses (p > 0.05). The count of total or viable P. aeruginosa 6294 on cholesterol-soaked PureVision or Acuvue Oasys was not different to that on control lenses without cholesterol treatment (p > 0.05). There was no differences between total count of P. aeruginosa 6294 to worn PureVision (6.5 ± 0.3 log units) and to unworn PureVision lenses (6.4 ± 0.1 log units, p = 1.00). However, the numbers of viable cells of P. aeruginosa 6294 adhered to worn PureVision (5.8 ± 0.4 log units) was significantly less than to unworn PureVision lenses (6.4 ± 0.2 log units, p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in total or viable adhesion of any test strains to worn Acuvue Oasys lenses compare to unworn Acuvue Oasys (p > 0.05).

Figure 2
Figure 2
Image Tools

Fig. 3 shows the adhesion of S. aureus 031 to unsoaked, cholesterol-soaked, and worn PureVision and Acuvue Oasys contact lenses. There was no difference between the total and viable counts for unsoaked lenses or for cholesterol-soaked lenses (p > 0.05). The count of total or viable S. aureus 031 on cholesterol-soaked PureVision or Acuvue Oasys was not different to that on control lenses without cholesterol treatment (p > 0.05). There was no differences between total count of S. aureus 031 to worn PureVision (5.5 ± 0.3 log units) and to unworn PureVision lenses (5.4 ± 0.3 log units, p = 1.00), whereas viable count of S. aureus 031 for worn PureVision (3.05 ± 0.8 log units) decreased significantly compared with unworn PureVision (4.6 ± 0.3 log units, p = 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in total or viable adhesion to worn Acuvue Oasys lenses compared with unworn Acuvue Oasys.

Figure 3
Figure 3
Image Tools

The adhesion of the remaining strains of P. aeruginosa, 6206 and GSU-3, and of S. aureus, 038 and ATCC6538, to unsoaked and cholesterol-soaked (10 μg/lens) PureVision contact lenses is shown in Fig. 4. The count of total or viable P. aeruginosa 6206 and GSU-3 on cholesterol-soaked PureVision was not different to that on control lenses without cholesterol treatment (p > 0.05). There was significant difference between the total and viable counts of S. aureus 038 for unsoaked lenses (4.3 ± 0.1 vs. 5.6 ± 0.1 log units; p = 0.03) and for cholesterol-soaked lenses (4.04 ± 0.3 vs. 5.7 ± 0.1 log units; p = 0.02). There was no difference between the total and viable counts of S. aureus ATCC6538 for unsoaked lenses (4.9 ± 0.2 vs. 5.4 ± 0.5 log units; p = 0.3) and for cholesterol-soaked lenses (4.6 ± 0.4 vs. 5.4 ± 0.2; p = 0.2). The count of total or viable S. aureus 038 and ATCC6538 on cholesterol-soaked PureVision was not different to that on control lenses without cholesterol treatment (p > 0.05).

Figure 4
Figure 4
Image Tools
Back to Top | Article Outline
Effect of Cholesterol on Bacterial Growth

The free cholesterol in minimal medium showed no effect on the growth of any test strains (p > 0.05). Growth of P. aeruginosa 6294 was 7.5 ± 0.03 log CFU/mL in non-cholesterol containing media and was 7.4 ± 0.2 log CFU/mL in cholesterol containing media. For S. aureus 031, growth was 5.3 ± 0.3 log CFU/mL in non-cholesterol containing media and was 5.2 ± 0.3 log CFU/mL in cholesterol containing media. For S. aureus 038, growth was 6.8 ± 0.2 log CFU/mL in non-cholesterol containing media and was 6.8 ± 0.05 log CFU/mL in cholesterol containing media. For S. aureus ATCC6538, growth was 5.9 ± 0.3 log CFU/mL in non-cholesterol containing media and was 5.9 ± 0.4 log CFU/mL in cholesterol containing media.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DISCUSSION

This study reports ex vivo biochemical analyses of lipid deposits extracted from two types of silicone hydrogel contact lenses when used in combination with two types of lens care solutions, and the effect of in vitro cholesterol adsorption to PureVision and Acuvue Oasys contact lenses on the adhesion and growth of P. aeruginosa and S. aureus. Cholesterol was selected for this study because it is recognized as a frequently detected non-polar lipid on silicone hydrogel contact lenses.10,29,31,32 This is the first report examining the effect of cholesterol adsorption on adhesion of bacteria to silicone hydrogel contact lenses.

Of the silicone hydrogel lens types examined in this study, more cholesterol could be extracted from PureVision lenses than from Acuvue Oasys lenses when combined with Menicare Soft or Opti-Free Replenish solutions. This might be related to surface treatment of PureVision lenses or might be due to the fact that PureVision lenses in this study have been worn for 1 month and Acuvue Oasys lenses for 2 wk. Zhao et al.29 found that significantly higher levels of cholesterol could be extracted from PureVision lenses than Acuvue Oasys lenses after wear, which is in the agreement with the current in vivo finding. Jones et al.9 suggested that PureVision, which contains N-vinyl pyrrolidone, had high affinity to adsorb lipids that can slowly penetrate the lens matrix. This report is supported by Maissa et al.30 The reason for high propensity of vinylpyrrolidone-based materials to adsorb lipids relates to the lipid solubility of pyrrolidone derivatives,50 which are found in both contact lenses tested in this study. There was a similar amount of cholesterol extracted from extended-wear Acuvue Oasys and Acuvue Oasys on DW modality in conjunction with Menicare Soft, which suggests that cholesterol may not be removed easily by Menicare Soft.

This ex vivo study demonstrated that there was a decrease in the viable adhesion of test strains to worn PureVision lenses. This may be due to the fact that specific tear components inhibit bacterial adhesion or kill the attached bacteria. However, this in vitro study showed cholesterol was unlikely to be the major tear component that reduced the adhesion of viable P. aeruginosa to worn lens surfaces, because we did not find any differences between the number of bacteria adhered to cholesterol-soaked or unsoaked lenses. It was noticed that the overall viable adhesion of S. aureus strains was lower than total adhesion. This might be due to S. aureus failing to survive in PBS over the adhesion assay (18 h), or because of the fact that, for Staphylococci in general, the tendency for them to clump would mean that viable cell counts, arising from more than one cell (4 to 6 cells generally), will always be less than total cell counts (where incorporation of 3H-uridine into cells is likely for all cells regardless of clumping). This study demonstrated that, unlike the findings for S. pneumoniae in vitro,49 cholesterol did not reduce the numbers of viable P. aeruginosa or S. aureus.

The current findings contrast with previous published data that has shown significant effects of tear film proteins on bacterial adhesion to lenses. When lactoferrin was coated on to hydrogel contact lenses, number of total P. aeruginosa adhesion increased; however, the number of viable bacterial cells reduced.24 Lactoferrin is known as an antibacterial protein,51 which presents in high concentration in the tear fluid.51–53 This iron-binding protein is able to damage the outer membrane of the Gram negative bacteria.54 Butrus et al.26 reported that albumin, lysozyme, and lactoferrin coated on the contact lenses increased adherence of P. aeruginosa to unworn contact lenses. Stern and co-workers55 indicated that the adhesion of P. aeruginosa increased by adsorption of mucin to the lens surface. The adhesion of S. aureus can be either increased or remained unchanged by adsorption of lysozyme to the lens surface.23,27 Moreover, a direct comparison between our study and most other adhesion studies is difficult as others have used different contact lenses and bacteria for a short-term adhesion. However, Borazjani et al.45 using the initial inoculum of 108 cells/mL found that for P. aeruginosa GSU 3, 6206, 6294, and S. aureus ATCC 6538, 2 × 105, 1 × 105, 2 × 104, and 7 × 103 cells/mm2 adhered to unworn PureVision lenses after 2 h incubation, respectively, and in this study, we found that at the initial inoculum of 107, the same strains adhered to the same lens at the level of 5.2 × 103, 2.6 × 103, 8.5 × 103, and 1.2 × 103 cells/mm2, respectively. This indicates that there is probably no biofilm formation when cells are incubated for 18 h compared with 2 h, and cholesterol may not be used by bacteria as a nutrient to promote biofilm formation. This may be due to the lack of nutrients in the suspending fluid (PBS) used in the current set of experiments.

This study indicates that cholesterol adsorbs/absorbs to silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Without the potential interactive effects of other tear proteins, cholesterol adsorb/absorption alone on unworn lenses does not affect bacterial adhesion or growth. This suggests that cholesterol deposition on silicone hydrogel materials during wear may not increase the risk of microbial keratitis associated with strains tested in this study. However, the influence of the interaction between cholesterol and other tear lipids or proteins on bacterial adhesion is unclear. Further study is required to identify the specific deposition that affects adhesion of bacteria to silicone hydrogel lens during wear.

Back to Top | Article Outline

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Dr. Thomas John for his assistance with the statistical analysis.

Negar Babaei Omali

Brien Holden Vision Institute

Level 5, North Wing, RMB, Gate 14, Barker Street

University of New South Wales

Sydney 2052, NSW

Australia

e-mail: n.babaei@brienholdenvision.org

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Holly FJ. Tear film physiology and contact lens wear. I. Pertinent aspects of tear film physiology. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1981;58:324–30.

2. Holly FJ, Lemp MA. Tear physiology and dry eyes. Surv Ophthalmol 1977;22:69–87.

3. Shine WE, McCulley JP. Polar lipids in human meibomian gland secretions. Curr Eye Res 2003;26:89–94.

4. Greiner JV, Glonek T, Korb DR, Leahy CD. Meibomian gland phospholipids. Curr Eye Res 1996;15:371–5.

5. McCulley JP, Shine W. A compositional based model for the tear film lipid layer. Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc 1997;95:79–88; discussion 88–93.

6. McCulley JP, Shine WE. The lipid layer of tears: dependent on meibomian gland function. Exp Eye Res 2004;78:361–5.

7. Craig JP, Tomlinson A. Importance of the lipid layer in human tear film stability and evaporation. Optom Vis Sci 1997;74:8–13.

8. Mathers WD, Lane JA. Meibomian gland lipids, evaporation, and tear film stability. Adv Exp Med Biol 1998;438:349–60.

9. Jones L, Evans K, Sariri R, Franklin V, Tighe B. Lipid and protein deposition of N-vinyl pyrrolidone-containing group II and group IV frequent replacement contact lenses. CLAO J 1997;23:122–6.

10. Maziarz EP, Stachowski MJ, Liu XM, Mosack L, Davis A, Musante C, Heckathorn D. Lipid deposition on silicone hydrogel lenses, part I: quantification of oleic acid, oleic acid methyl ester, and cholesterol. Eye Contact Lens 2006;32:300–7.

11. Okada E, Matsuda T, Yokoyama T, Okuda K. Lysozyme penetration in group IV soft contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2006;32:174–7.

12. Mochizuki H, Yamada M, Hatou S, Kawashima M, Hata S. Deposition of lipid, protein, and secretory phospholipase A2 on hydrophilic contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens 2008;34:46–9.

13. Jones L, Mann A, Evans K, Franklin V, Tighe B. An in vivo comparison 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.

14. Fonn D. Targeting contact lens induced dryness and discomfort: what properties will make lenses more comfortable. Optom Vis Sci 2007;84:279–85.

15. Nichols JJ, Sinnott LT. Tear film, contact lens, and patient-related factors associated with contact lens-related dry eye. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2006;47:1319–28.

16. Gellatly KW, Brennan NA, Efron N. Visual decrement with deposit accumulation of HEMA contact lenses. Am J Optom Physiol Opt 1988;65:937–41.

17. Timberlake GT, Doane MG, Bertera JH. Short-term, low-contrast visual acuity reduction associated with in vivo contact lens drying. Optom Vis Sci 1992;69:755–60.

18. Nichols JJ, Ziegler C, Mitchell GL, Nichols KK. Self-reported dry eye disease across refractive modalities. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2005;46:1911–4.

19. Willcox MD, Harmis N, Cowell, Williams T, Holden. Bacterial interactions with contact lenses; effects of lens material, lens wear and microbial physiology. Biomaterials 2001;22:3235–47.

20. Willcox MD, Holden BA. Contact lens related corneal infections. Biosci Rep 2001;21:445–61.

21. Butrus SI, Klotz SA. Contact lens surface deposits increase the adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Curr Eye Res 1990;9:717–24.

22. Aswad MI, John T, Barza M, Kenyon K, Baum J. Bacterial adherence to extended wear soft contact lenses. Ophthalmology 1990;97:296–302.

23. 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.

24. 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.

25. 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.

26. Butrus SI, Klotz SA, Misra RP. The adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to soft contact lenses. Ophthalmology 1987;94:1310–4.

27. Zhang S, Borazjani RN, Salamone JC, Ahearn DG, Crow SA, Jr., Pierce GE. In vitro deposition of lysozyme on etafilcon A and balafilcon A hydrogel contact lenses: effects on adhesion and survival of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Staphylococcus aureus. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2005;28:113–9.

28. Jones L, Franklin V, Evans K, Sariri R, Tighe B. Spoilation and clinical performance of monthly vs. three monthly Group II disposable contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci 1996;73:16–21.

29. Zhao Z, Carnt NA, Aliwarga Y, Wei X, Naduvilath T, Garrett Q, Korth J, Willcox MD. Care regimen and lens material influence on silicone hydrogel contact lens deposition. Optom Vis Sci 2009;86:251–9.

30. Maissa C, Franklin V, Guillon M, Tighe B. Influence of contact lens material surface characteristics and replacement frequency on protein and lipid deposition. Optom Vis Sci 1998;75:697–705.

31. Saville JT, Zhao Z, Willcox MD, Blanksby SJ, Mitchell TW. Detection and quantification of tear phospholipids and cholesterol in contact lens deposits: the effect of contact lens material and lens care solution. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2010;51:2843–51.

32. 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.

33. Nichols JJ. Deposition rates and lens care influence on galyfilcon A silicone hydrogel lenses. Optom Vis Sci 2006;83:751–7.

34. Senchyna M, Jones L, Louie D, May C, Forbes I, Glasier MA. Quantitative and conformational characterization of lysozyme deposited on balafilcon and etafilcon contact lens materials. Curr Eye Res 2004;28:25–36.

35. Iwata M, Ohno S, Kawai T, Ichijima H, Cavanagh HD. In vitro evaluation of lipids adsorbed on silicone hydrogel contact lenses using a new gas chromatography/mass spectrometry analytical method. Eye Contact Lens 2008;34:272–80.

36. Bontempo AR, Rapp J. Lipid deposits on hydrophilic and rigid gas permeable contact lenses. CLAO J 1994;20:242–5.

37. Hart DE, Lane BC, Josephson JE, Tisdale RR, Gzik M, Leahy R, Dennis R. Spoilage of hydrogel contact lenses by lipid deposits. Tear-film potassium depression, fat, protein, and alcohol consumption. Ophthalmology 1987;94:1315–21.

38. Carney FP, Nash WL, Sentell KB. The adsorption of major tear film lipids in vitro to various silicone hydrogels over time. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2008;49:120–4.

39. Klotz SA, Misra RP, Butrus SI. Contact lens wear enhances adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa and binding of lectins to the cornea. Cornea 1990;9:266–70.

40. Miller MJ, Ahearn DG. Adherence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa to hydrophilic contact lenses and other substrata. J Clin Microbiol 1987;25:1392–7.

41. 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.

42. Boles SF, Refojo MF, Leong FL. Attachment of Pseudomonas to human-worn, disposable etafilcon A contact lenses. Cornea 1992;11:47–52.

43. Bruinsma GM, Rustema-Abbing M, de Vries J, Stegenga B, van der Mei HC, van der Linden ML, Hooymans JM, Busscher HJ. Influence of wear and overwear on surface properties of etafilcon A contact lenses and adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2002;43:3646–53.

44. Bruinsma GM, van der Mei HC, Busscher HJ. Bacterial adhesion to surface hydrophilic and hydrophobic contact lenses. Biomaterials 2001;22:3217–24.

45. Borazjani RN, Levy B, Ahearn DG. Relative primary adhesion of Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens and Staphylococcus aureus to HEMA-type contact lenses and an extended wear silicone hydrogel contact lens of high oxygen permeability. Cont Lens Anterior Eye 2004;27:3–8.

46. Kodjikian L, Casoli-Bergeron E, Malet F, Janin-Manificat H, Freney J, Burillon C, Colin J, Steghens JP. Bacterial adhesion to conventional hydrogel and new silicone-hydrogel contact lens materials. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol 2008;246:267–73.

47. 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.

48. Bontempo AR, Rapp J. Protein and lipid deposition onto hydrophilic contact lenses in vivo. CLAO J 2001;27:75–80.

49. Marquart ME, Monds KS, McCormick CC, Dixon SN, Sanders ME, Reed JM, McDaniel LS, Caballero AR, O'Callaghan RJ. Cholesterol as treatment for pneumococcal keratitis: cholesterol-specific inhibition of pneumolysin in the cornea. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 2007;48:2661–6.

50. Sasaki H, Kojima M, Mori Y, Nakamura J, Shibasaki J. Enhancing effect of pyrrolidone derivatives on transdermal penetration of 5-fluorouracil, triamcinolone acetonide, indomethacin, and flurbiprofen. J Pharm Sci 1991;80:533–8.

51. Kijlstra A. The role of lactoferrin in the nonspecific immune response on the ocular surface. Reg Immunol 1990–1991;3:193–7.

52. Fullard RJ, Tucker DL. Changes in human tear protein levels with progressively increasing stimulus. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 1991;32:2290–301.

53. 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.

54. Ellison RT, III, Giehl TJ, LaForce FM. Damage of the outer membrane of enteric gram-negative bacteria by lactoferrin and transferrin. Infect Immun 1988;56:2774–81.

55. DiGaetano M, Stern GA, Zam ZS. The pathogenesis of contact lens-associated Pseudomonas aeruginosa corneal ulceration. II. An animal model. Cornea 1986;5:155–8.

Keywords:

deposition; Pseudomonas aeruginosa; Staphylococcus aureus; silicone hydrogel contact lenses; tear film

© 2011 American Academy of Optometry

Login

Search for Similar Articles
You may search for similar articles that contain these same keywords or you may modify the keyword list to augment your search.