You are not logged in.

Substance P in flush tears and Schirmer strips of healthy participants

Markoulli, Maria, Gokhale, Moneisha and You, Jingjing 2016, Substance P in flush tears and Schirmer strips of healthy participants, Optometry and vision science, pp. 1-7, doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001040.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads

Title Substance P in flush tears and Schirmer strips of healthy participants
Author(s) Markoulli, Maria
Gokhale, Moneisha
You, Jingjing
Journal name Optometry and vision science
Start page 1
End page 7
Total pages 7
Publisher Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
Place of publication Philadelphia, Pa.
Publication date 2016-12
ISSN 1538-9235
Summary PURPOSE: To determine the repeatability of the flush tear collection technique and the Schirmer strip for Substance P tear analysis. METHODS: The tears of 10 healthy non-contact-lens wearers were collected via Schirmer strip and microcapillary following instillation of either 20 μL (F-20) or 60 μL (F-60) of saline. Each technique was conducted on two occasions and in a randomized order. Total protein content (TPC) and Substance P concentrations were determined. The overall protein separation profile of each type of tears was examined using one-dimensional gel electrophoresis (1DGE). RESULTS: Collection rates were significantly faster for the F-60 compared to F-20 (17.3 ± 6.9 μL/min and 11.9 ± 5.3 μL/min, respectively, P < .001), with an average Schirmer strip length of 1.5 ± 2.1 mm/min. The coefficient of repeatability between days and eyes was greatest for the Schirmer strip, with eyes and days being significantly different (P = .03 and P = .03, respectively) for Schirmer strip Substance P. TPC was 3.8 ± 2.6 mg/mL, 3.3 ± 1.8 mg/mL, and 3.6 ± 3.0 mg/mL for F-20, F-60, and Schirmer strip techniques, respectively, with no significant difference between techniques (P = .85). Substance P concentration was 13.1 ± 14.8 ng/mL, 9.1 ± 6.1 ng/mL, and 14.9 ± 10.6 ng/mL for F-20, F-60, and Schirmer strip tears, respectively, with no significant difference between techniques (P = .57). 1DGE profile showed similar electrophoresis patterns among F-20, F-60, and basal tears. CONCLUSIONS: The F-60 method allows faster collection than F-20, but the latter results in better repeatability than both the F-60 and Schirmer sampling techniques. All three techniques return the same concentrations of TPC and Substance P. This indicates that tear collection using the F-20 may be more appropriate when conducting comparative analysis, whereas the F-60 may be more appropriate when more volume is required.
Notes In press
Language eng
DOI 10.1097/OPX.0000000000001040
Field of Research 111303 Vision Science
Socio Economic Objective 920107 Hearing
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2016, American Academy of Optometry
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30091377

Document type: Journal Article
Collection: School of Medicine
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 4 Abstract Views, 1 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Fri, 17 Feb 2017, 12:09:47 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.