| Title |
Acanthamoeba encystment: multifactorial effects of buffers, biocides, and demulcents present in contact lens care solutions
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Ophthalmology, October 2015
|
| DOI | 10.2147/opth.s88199 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher J Kovacs, Shawn C Lynch, Marjorie J Rah, Kimberly A Millard, Timothy W Morris |
| Abstract |
To determine whether agents which are purportedly capable of inducing encystment of Acanthamoeba can recapitulate the signal when tested in differing formulations. In accordance with the International Standard ISO 19045, Acanthamoeba castellanii ATCC 50370 trophozoites were cultured in antibiotic-free axenic medium, treated with test solutions, and encystment rates plus viability were measured via bright field and fluorescent microscopy. Test solutions included phosphate-buffered saline (PBS), borate-buffered saline, biguanide- and hydrogen peroxide (H2O2)-based biocides, propylene glycol (PG) and povidone (POV) ophthalmic demulcents, and one-step H2O2-based contact lens disinfection systems. Only PBS solutions with 0.25 ppm polyaminopropyl biguanide (PAPB) and increasing concentrations of PG and POV stimulated A. castellanii encystment in a dose-dependent manner, whereas PBS solutions containing 3% H2O2 and increasing concentrations of PG and POV did not stimulate encystment. Borate-buffered saline and PBS/citrate solutions containing PG also did not stimulate encystment. In addition, no encystment was observed after 24 hours, 7 days, or 14 days of exposures of trophozoites to one-step H2O2 contact lens disinfection products or related solutions. The lack of any encystment observed when trophozoites were treated with existing or new one-step H2O2 contact lens care products, as well as when trophozoites were exposed to various related test solutions, confirms that Acanthamoeba encystment is a complex process which depends upon simultaneous contributions of multiple factors including buffers, biocides, and demulcents. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 26 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 7 | 27% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 27% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 3 | 12% |
| Researcher | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 2 | 8% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Immunology and Microbiology | 11 | 42% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 12% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 12% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 8% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 2 | 8% |
| Unknown | 3 | 12% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#16,048,318
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Ophthalmology
#1,344
of 3,714 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#152,469
of 286,877 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Ophthalmology
#34
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,714 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 286,877 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.