Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-nx7b4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-06T17:50:35.870Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decreased Attachment of Bacteria to Lubricin Coated Intraocular Lenses

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2011

George E. Aninwene II ,
Erik Taylor ,
Amy Mei ,
Gregory D. Jay  and
Thomas J. Webster
George E. Aninwene II
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
Erik Taylor
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
Amy Mei
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
Gregory D. Jay
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, Rhode Island 02912
Thomas J. Webster
Affiliation:
School of Engineering, Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island 02912 Department of Orthopaedic,s Brown University, Providence, RI 02912
Get access

Abstract

Lubricin is an amphiphilic glycoprotein that is found in the synovial fluid [1]. This protein holds promise as an anti-biofouling agent. This study investigated lubricin’s ability to prevent bacterial attachment and proliferation on intraocular lenses. The findings from this study indicated that lubricin is able to reduce the attachment of Staphylococcus aureus to poly (methyl methacrylate) intraocular lens. Lubricin coatings were confirmed on the surfaces after a 2 hour soak by changes in surface energy. Also, lubricin reduced bacterial proliferation.

Keywords

biomaterialsurface chemistrybiomedical

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

[1] Jay, G. D., Torres, J. R., Warman, M. L., Laderer, M. C., Breuer, K. S., Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104 (2007) 6194–6199.Google Scholar
[2] Congdon, N. G., Friedman, D. S., Lietman, T., JAMA 290 (2003) 2057–2060.Google Scholar
[3] Werner, L., Journal of Cataract & Refractive Surgery 33(2007) 713–726.Google Scholar
[4] Hesse, Y., Kampmeier, J., Lang, G. K., Baldysiak-Figiel, A., Lang, G. E., Graefes Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology 241 (2003) 823–826.Google Scholar
[5] Kodjikian, L., Burillon, C., Chanloy, C., Bostvironnois, V., Pellon, G., Mari, E., Freney, J., Roger, T., In vivo study of bacterial adhesion to five types of intraocular lenses, in: Assoc Research Vision Ophthalmology Inc, 2002, pp. 3717–3721.Google Scholar
[6] Niyadurupola, N., Astbury, N., Community Eye Health 21 (2008) 9–10.Google Scholar
[7] Kluytmans, J., van Belkum, A., Verbrugh, H., Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 10 (1997) 505–520.Google Scholar
[8] Zappone, B., Ruths, M., Greene, G. W., Jay, G. D., Israelachvili, J. N., Biophysical Journal 92 (2007) 1693–1708.Google Scholar
[9] Jay, G. D., Haberstroh, K., Cha, C.-J., Journal of Biomedical Materials Research 40 (1998) 414–418.Google Scholar
[10] Puckett, S. D., Lee, P. P., Ciombor, D. M., Aaron, R. K., Webster, T. J., Acta Biomaterialia 6 (2009) 2352–2362.Google Scholar
[11] Puckett, S. D., Taylor, E., Raimondo, T., Webster, T. J., Biomaterials 31 (2009) 706–713.Google Scholar