This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Miguel F. Refojo, DSc
Boston

Arch Ophthalmol. 1985;103(9):1269-1270.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—A recent report in the ARCHIVES by Gudmundsson and associates,¹ my colleagues at the Eye Research Institute of Retina Foundation, Boston, quoted some of my work, but I was not aware of the article before its publication. I agree that the authors have demonstrated that several tear proteins are adsorbed on worn soft (hydrogel) contact lenses and that these proteins are sufficiently undenatured so as to be detected by immunofluorescence microscopy. However, I disagree with their interpretation of the results. First, the fact that there are some undenatured proteins on the lenses does not preclude the presence of denatured proteins.² The immunologic technique does not detect denatured proteins. In addition, Mannucci et al³ reported at the recent Sixth International Congress of Eye Research in Alicante, Spain, that circular dichroism showed denatured lysozyme in worn hydrogel lenses.

Second, the fact that the immunofluorescence technique detected . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?