ArticleInvestigative ophthalmology & visual science2025
Temporal Analysis of Tear Fluid Proteome Reveals Critical Corneal Repair Events After Photorefractive Surgery.
Article in Investigative ophthalmology & visual science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Integrated tear proteomics define the molecular blueprint of corneal epithelial repair.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To map time-resolved tear proteome changes during corneal epithelial wound healing after photorefractive keratectomy (PRK) and nominate tear-based biomarker panels with translational potential. Methods: Tears from 10 healthy adults were collected before PRK (Pre), ∼30-60 minutes after PRK (D0), and day 3 (D3) using Schirmer strips. Proteins were extracted (SP3), trypsin-digested, and analyzed by DIA on an Evosep One-timsTOF HT platform. DIA-NN (1% FDR) provided identification/quantification. Paired contrasts (Pre vs. D0; Pre vs. D3) defined differentially abundant proteins (adjusted P < 0.05; |fold change|≥2) for pathway enrichment. A stringent screen (adjusted P < 0.001; FC>2.5) and UniProt-based annotation distinguished secreted versus intracellular candidates. Results: Across 2025 identified proteins, 909 (∼45%) were significantly modulated. D0 tears showed an "injury/ECM" program (e.g., TGFBI, lumican, keratocan, fibrinogen chains, complement C8B, APOA1), whereas D3 shifted toward remodeling and epithelial polarity with regulated proteolysis (e.g., SERPINA3, MMP7, THBS1, MUC5B, CXCL17). A subset persisted across time points (e.g., A2M, haptoglobin, OLFML3). Intracellular signatures paralleled phase transitions: D0 was enriched for chromatin/DNA-repair and RNA-binding proteins (histones, XRCC5/Ku80, HNRNPs), whereas D3 highlighted transport/cytoskeletal factors linked to apical remodeling and fluid/ion handling (AQP5, NHERF1/EBP50, ANO1/TMEM16A, ACTN1, RDX). H6PD was elevated at both D0 and D3. Conclusions: Time-stamped, tear-accessible biomarker panels emerge from this analysis: early-injury (TGFBI, lumican/keratocan, fibrinogen/complement), sustained (A2M, haptoglobin, OLFML3), and late-remodeling/epithelial (SERPINA3, MMP7, THBS1, MUC5B, CXCL17), with complementary intracellular markers (AQP5/NHERF1/ANO1). These candidates may support perioperative monitoring, risk stratification (delayed closure, stromal haze), and phase-adapted therapy after PRK, warranting prospective clinical validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.