Conventional and silicone hydrogels as models for contact lenses were prepared to determine the effect of the presence of hyaluronic acid on lysozyme sorption and denaturation. Hyaluronic acid was loaded into poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) and poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate)/TRIS – methacryloxypropyltris (trimethylsiloxy silane) hydrogels, which served as models for conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lens materials. The hyaluronic acid was cross-linked using 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)-carbodiimide in the presence of dendrimers. Active lysozyme was quantified using a Micrococcus lysodeikticus assay while total lysozyme was determined using 125-I radiolabeled protein. To examine the location of hyaluronic acid in the gels, 6-aminofluorescein labeled hyaluronic acid was incorporated into the gels using 1-ethyl-3-(3-dimethylaminopropyl)-carbodiimide chemistry and the gels were examined using confocal laser scanning microscopy. Hyaluronic acid incorporation significantly reduced lysozyme sorption in poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (p < 0.00001) and poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate)/TRIS – methacryloxypropyltris (trimethylsiloxy silane) (p < 0.001) hydrogels, with the modified materials sorbing only 20% and 16% that of the control, respectively. More importantly, hyaluronic acid also decreased lysozyme denaturation in poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate) (p < 0.005) and poly(2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate)/TRIS – methacryloxypropyltris (trimethylsiloxy silane) (p < 0.02) hydrogels. The confocal laser scanning microscopy results showed that the hyaluronic acid distribution was dependent on both the material type and the molecular weight of hyaluronic acid. This study demonstrates that hyaluronic acid incorporated as a wetting agent has the potential to reduce lysozyme sorption and denaturation in contact lens applications. The distribution of hyaluronic acid within hydrogels appears to affect denaturation, with more surface mobile, lower molecular weight hyaluronic acid being more effective in preventing denaturation.
BohnertJLHorbettTARatnerBD. Adsorption of proteins from artificial tear solutions to contact lens materials. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1988; 29(3): 362–373.
5.
GarrettQChatelierRCGriesserHJ. Effect of charged groups on the adsorption and penetration of proteins onto and into carboxymethylated poly(HEMA) hydrogels. Biomaterials1998; 19: 2175–2186.
6.
BontempoARRappJ. Protein and lipid deposition onto hydrophilic contact lenses in vivo. CLAO2001; 27(2): 75–80.
7.
HuJTartagliaLKohlerJ. Gentle touch, a lens material resistant to protein deposition. CLAO1995; 21(2): 93–95.
8.
CastilloEJKoenigJLAndersonJM. Characterization of protein adsorption on soft contact lenses. I conformational changes of adsorbed human serum albumin. Biomaterials1984; 5: 319–326.
9.
MoradiOModarressHNorooziM. Experimental study of albumin and lysozyme adsorption onto acrylic acid (AA) and 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) surfaces. J Coll Interface Sci2004; 271: 16–19.
10.
ChenHBrookMAChenY. Surface properties of PEO-silicone composites: reducing protein adsorption. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed2005; 16(4): 531–548.
11.
MinarikLRappJ. Protein deposits on individual hydrophilic contact lenses: effects of water and ionicity. Contact Lens Assoc Ophthalmol1989; 15(3): 185–188.
12.
GarrettQGarrettRWMilthorpeBK. Lysozyme sorption in hydrogel contact lenses. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci1999; 40(5): 897–903.
13.
CarneyFPMorrisCAMilthorpeB. In vitro adsorption of tear proteins to hydroxyethyl methacrylate-based contact lens materials. Eye Contact Lens2009; 6: 320–328.
14.
Soltys-RobitailleCEAmmonDMJrValintPLJr. The relationship between contact lens surface charge and in-vitro protein deposition levels. Biomaterials2001; 22: 3257–3260.
15.
MyersRILarsenDWTsaoM. Quantity of protein deposited on hydrogel contact lenses and its relation to visible protein deposits. Optom Vis Sci1991; 68(10): 776–782.
16.
BowersRWJTigheBJ. Studies of the ocular compatibility of hydrogels. A review of the clinical manifestations of spoilation. Biomaterials1987; 8: 83–89.
17.
FurnessELRossADavisTP. A hydrophobic interaction site for lysozyme binding to polyethylene glycol and model contact lens polymers. Biomaterials1998; 19: 1361–1369.
18.
JonesLMannAEvansK. An in vivo comparison of the kinetics of protein and lipid deposition on group II and group IV frequent-replacement contact lenses. Optom Vision Sci2000; 77: 503–510.
19.
PorazinskiADDonshikPC. Giant papillary conjunctivits in frequent replacement contact lens wearers: a retrospective study. CLAO1999; 25(3): 142–147.
20.
SkotnitskyCSankaridurgPRSweeneyDF. General and local contact lens induced papillary conjunctivitis. Clin Exp Optom2002; 85(3): 193–197.
21.
CastilloEJKoenigJLAndersonJM. Protein adsorption on hydrogels II. Reversible and irreversible interactions between lysozyme and soft contact lens surfaces. Biomaterials1985; 6: 338–345.
22.
RefojoMFHollyFJ. Tear protein adsorption on hydrogels: a possible cause of contact lens allergy. Contact Intraocul Lens Med J1977; 3: 23–35.
23.
SubbaramanLNGlasierMASenchynaM. Kinetics of in vitro lysozyme deposition on silicone hydrogel, PMMA, and FDA groups I, II, and IV contact lens materials. Curr Eye Res2006; 31: 787–796.
24.
SuwalaMGlasierMASubbaramanLN. Quantity and conformation of lysozyme deposited on conventional and silicone hydrogels contact lens materials using a in vitro model. Eye Contact Lens2007; 33(3): 138–143.
25.
JonesLSenchynaMGlasierMA. Lysozyme and lipid deposition on silicone hydrogel contact lens materials. Eye Contact Lens2003; 29(1S): S75–S79.
26.
BooneAHeynenMJoyceE. Ex vivo protein deposition on bi-weekly silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci2009; 86(11): 1241–1249.
27.
KnudsonCBKnudsonW. Cartilage proteoglycans. Sem Cell Dev Biol2001; 12: 69–78.
28.
BrewtonRGMayneR. Mammalian vitreous humor contains networks of hyaluronan molecules: electron microscope analysis using the hyaluronan-binding region (G1) and aggrecan and link protein. Exp Cell Res1992; 198: 237–249.
29.
LeachJBSchmidtCE. Characterization of protein release from photocrosslinkable hyaluronic acid-polyethylene glycol hydrogel tissue engineering scaffolds. Biomaterials2005; 26: 125–135.
30.
SeguraTAndersonBCChungPH. Crosslinked hyaluronic acid hydrogels: a strategy to functionalize and pattern. Biomaterials2005; 26: 359–371.
31.
ItoTFraserIPYeoY. Anti-inflammatory function of an in situ cross-linkable conjugate hydrogel of hyaluronic acid and dexamethasone. Biomaterials2007; 28: 1788–1789.
32.
LeeHMokHLeeS. Target-specific intracellular delivery of siRNA using degradable hyaluronic acid nanogels. J Cont Release2007; 119: 245–252.
33.
MoriyamaKOoyaTYuiN. Hyaluronic acid grafted with poly(ethylene glycol) as a novel peptide formulation. J Cont Release1999; 59: 77–86.
34.
LuoYKirkerKRPrestwichGD. Cross-linked hyaluronic acid hydrogels films: new biomaterials for drug delivery. J Cont Release2000; 69: 169–184.
35.
LimSTForbesBBerryDJ. In vivo evaluation of novel hyaluronan/chitosan microparticulate delivery systems for the nasal delivery of gentamicin in rabbits. Int J Pharm2002; 231: 73–82.
36.
SurendrakumarKMartynGPHodgersECM. Sustained release of insulin from sodium hyaluronate based dry powder formulations after pulmonary delivery to beagle dogs. J Cont Release2003; 91: 385–394.
37.
YunYHGoetzDJYellenP. Hyaluronan microspheres for sustained gene delivery and site-specific targeting. Biomaterials2004; 25: 147–157.
38.
YadavAKMishraPMishraAK. Development and characterization of hyaluronic acid–anchored PLGA nanoparticulate carriers of doxorubicin. Nanomedicine2007; 3: 246–257.
39.
ChoyEPYChoPBenzieIFF. Investigation of corneal effect of different artificial tears in a simulated dry eye condition using a novel porcine dry eye model (pDEM). Cornea2006; 25: 1200–1204.
40.
Barbault-FoucherSGrefRRussoP. Design of poly-ɛ-caprolactone nanospheres coated with bioadhesive hyaluronic acid for ocular delivery. J Cont Release2002; 83: 365–375.
41.
KyyronenKHumeLBenedettiL. Methylprednisolone esters of hyaluronic acid in ophthalmic drug delivery: in vitro and in vivo release studies. Int J Pharm1992; 80: 161–169.
42.
ChoKYChungTWKimBC. Release of ciprofloxacin from poloxamer-graft-hyaluronic acid hydrogels in vitro. Int J Pharm2003; 260: 83–91.
43.
YokoiNKomuroANishidaK. Effectiveness of hyaluronan on corneal epithelial barrier function in dry eye. B J Ophthalmol1997; 81: 533–536.
44.
AragonaPPapaVMicaliA. Long term treatment with sodium hyaluronate-containing artificial tears reduces ocular surface damage in patients with dry eye. B J Ophthalmol2002; 86: 181–184.
45.
JohnsonMEMurphyPJBoultonM. Effectiveness of sodium hyaluronate eyedrops in the treatment of dry eye. Gr Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol2006; 244: 109–112.
46.
HolzerMPTetzMRAuffarthGU. Effect of Healon 5 and 4 other viscoelastics substances on intraocular pressure and endothelium after catarct surgery. J Cat Refract Surg2001; 27: 213–218.
47.
Van BeekMJonesLSheardownH. Hyaluronic acid containing hydrogels for the reduction of protein adsorption. Biomaterials2008; 29: 780–789.
48.
Van BeekMWeeksAJonesL. Immobilized hyaluronic acid containing model silicone hydrogels reduce protein adsorption. J Biomater Sci Polym Ed2008; 19(11): 1425–1436.
49.
WrightEAPayneKAPJowittTA. Preservation of human tear protein structure and function by a novel contact lens multipurpose solution containing protein-stabilizing agents. Eye Contact Lens2012; 38: 36–42.
50.
SenchynaMJonesLLouieD. Quantitative and conformational characterization of lysozyme deposited on balafilcon and etafilcon contact lens materials. Curr Eye Res2004; 28(1): 25–36.
51.
SubbaramanLNBayerSGlasierMA. Rewetting drops containing surface active agents improve the clinical performance of silicone hydrogel contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci2006; 83(3): 143–151.
52.
KeithDHongBChristensenM. A novel procedure for the extraction of protein deposits from soft hydrophilic contact lenses for analysis. Curr Eye Res1997; 16: 503–510.
53.
LuensmannDGlasierMAZhangF. Confocal microscopy and albumin penetration into contact lenses. Optom Vis Sci2007; 84(9): 839–847.
54.
LuensmannDZhangFSubbaramanL. Localization of lysozyme sorption to conventional and silicone hydrogel contact lenses using confocal microscopy. Curr Eye Res2009; 34: 683–697.
55.
ChowLMSubbaramanLNSheardownH. Kinetics of in vitro lactoferrin deposition on silicone hydrogels and FDA group II and group IV hydrogel contact lens materials. J Biomater Sci2009; 20: 71–82.
56.
KeithDJChristensenMTBarryJR. Determination of the lysozyme deposit curve in soft contact lenses. Eye Contact Lens2003; 29(2): 79–82.
57.
AliMByrneME. Controlled release of high molecular weight hyaluronic acid from molecularly imprinted hydrogel contact lenses. Pharm Res2009; 26(3): 714–726.
58.
VermettePMeagherL. Interactions of phospholipid- and poly(ethylene glycol)-modified surfaces with biological systems: relation to physico-chemical properties and mechanisms. Coll Surf B: Biointer2003; 28: 153–198.
59.
FengWBrashJLBZhuS. Non-biofouling materials prepared by atom transfer radical polymerization grafting of 2-methacryloloxyethyl phophorylcholine: separate effects of graft density and chain length on protein repulsion. Biomaterials2006; 27: 847–855.
