ArticleMolecular vision2012
Comparison of ophthalmic sponges and extraction buffers for quantifying cytokine profiles in tears using Luminex technology.
Article in Molecular vision, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dry Eye Disease and Tear Cytokine Levels-A Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Pooled it
- Quiescent and Active Tear Protein Profiles to Predict Vernal Keratoconjunctivitis Reactivation.BioMed research international · 2016Trial
- Tear cytokine profile as a noninvasive biomarker of inflammation for ocular surface diseases: standard operating procedures.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2013Trial
- Ocular Sticks for Routine Ophthalmic Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Monocentric Trial.Ophthalmology and therapy · 2025Article
- Longitudinal changes in tear cytokines and antimicrobial proteins in trachomatous disease.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- Analysis and comparison of tear protein profiles in dogs using different tear collection methods.BMC veterinary research · 2022Article
- Critical role of mass spectrometry proteomics in tear biomarker discovery for multifactorial ocular diseases (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2021Review
- Protein Microarrays for Ocular Diseases.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2021Review
- Importance of the Use of Oxidative Stress Biomarkers and Inflammatory Profile in Aqueous and Vitreous Humor in Diabetic Retinopathy.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Development of a Quantitative Immunoassay for Tear Lacritin Proteoforms.Translational vision science & technology · 2020Article
- Aquaporin 1 (AQP1) Expression in Healthy Dog Tears.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Article
- Bead Based Multiplex Assay for Analysis of Tear Cytokine Profiles.Journal of visualized experiments : JoVE · 2017Article
- The Growing Need for Validated Biomarkers and Endpoints for Dry Eye Clinical Research.Investigative ophthalmology & visual science · 2017Review
- Concentrations of MUC16 and MUC5AC using three tear collection methods.Molecular vision · 2017Article
- Expression of TSLP and Downstream Molecules IL-4, IL-5, and IL-13 on the Eye Surface of Patients with Various Types of Allergic Conjunctivitis.Journal of ophthalmology · 2016Article
- Human tear analysis with miniaturized multiplex cytokine assay on "wall-less" 96-well plate.Molecular vision · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeEvaluating cytokine profiles in tears could shed light on the pathogenesis of various ocular surface diseases. When collecting tears with the methods currently available, it is often not possible to avoid the tear reflex, which may give a different cytokine profile compared to basal tears. More importantly, tear collection with glass capillaries, the most widely used method for taking samples and the best method for avoiding tear reflex, is impractical for remote area field studies because it is tedious and time-consuming for health workers, who cannot collect tears from a large number of patients with this method in one day. Furthermore, this method is uncomfortable for anxious patients and children. Thus, tears are frequently collected using ophthalmic sponges. These sponges have the advantage that they are well tolerated by the patient, especially children, and enable standardization of the tear collection volume. The aim of this study was to compare various ophthalmic sponges and extraction buffers to optimize the tear collection method for field studies for subsequent quantification of cytokines in tears using the Luminex technology.
methodsThree ophthalmic sponges, Merocel, Pro-ophta, and Weck-Cel, were tested. Sponges were presoaked with 25 cytokines/chemokines of known concentrations and eluted with seven different extraction buffers (EX1-EX7). To assess possible interference in the assay from the sponges, two standard curves were prepared in parallel: 1) cytokines of known concentrations with the extraction buffers and 2) cytokines of known concentrations loaded onto the sponges with the extraction buffers. Subsequently, a clinical assessment of the chosen sponge-buffer combination was performed with tears collected from four healthy subjects using 1) aspiration and 2) sponges. To quantify cytokine/chemokine recovery and the concentration in the tears, a 25-plex Cytokine Panel and the Luminex xMap were used. This platform enables simultaneous measurement of proinflammatory cytokines, Th1/Th2 distinguishing cytokines, nonspecific acting cytokines, and chemokines.
resultsWE DEMONSTRATED THE FOLLOWING: (i) 25 cytokines/chemokines expressed highly variable interactions with buffers and matrices. Several buffers enabled recovery of similar cytokine values (regulated and normal T cell expressed and secreted [RANTES], interleukin [IL]-13, IL-6, IL-8, IL-2R, and granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor [GM-CSF]); others were highly variable (monocyte chemotactic protein-1 [MCP-1], monokine induced by interferon-gamma [MIG], IL-1β, IL-4, IL-7, and eotaxin). (ii) Various extraction buffers displayed significantly different recovery rates on the same sponge for the same cytokine/chemokine. (iii) The highest recovery rates were obtained with the Merocel ophthalmic sponge except for tumor necrosis factor-α: the Weck-Cel ophthalmic sponge showed the best results, either with cytokine standards loaded onto sponges or with tears collected from the inner canthus of the eye, using the sponge. (iv) IL-5, IL-10, and interferon-α were not detected in any tear sample from four normal human subjects. Twenty-two cytokines/chemokines that we detected were extracted from the Merocel sponge to a satisfactory recovery percentage. The recovery of IL-7 was significantly lower in the extracted Merocel sponge compared to the diluted tear samples. The cytokine/chemokine extraction from tears showed the same pattern of extraction that we observed for extracting the standards.
conclusionsSimultaneous measurement of various cytokines using ophthalmic sponges yielded diverse results for various cytokines as the level of extraction differs noticeably for certain cytokines. A second set of controls (standard curves "with sponges") should be used to delineate the extent of extraction for each cytokine to be analyzed. Many cytokines/chemokines were detected in tear samples collected with the Merocel sponge, including many that have been implicated in ocular surface disease. Luminex detection of cytokine/chemokine profiles of tears collected with Merocel sponges and extracted with buffer EX1 may be useful in clinical studies, for example, to assess cytokine profiles evaluation in ocular surface diseases.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23233782PMC3519369W2147364024What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.