Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2012
Effect of different artificial tears against desiccation in cultured human epithelial cells.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Tost Frank, Keiss Ramona, Großjohann Rico, Jürgens Clemens, Giebel Jürgen
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: A large number of artificial tears is widely used to treat dry eye symptoms. To test the efficacy of these drugs independent of individual parameters in vitro models are required. As described previously, we employed a reproducible in vitro cell culture system to evaluate the desiccation protection capability of some artificial tears. In THE PRESENT PAPER DATA IS PRESENTED OF ANOTHER SET OF PHARMACEUTICAL AGENTS.
MATERIAL/METHODS: Conjunctival epithelial cell line Chang 1-5c-4 (series 1) and the corneal cell line 2.040 pRSV-T (series 2) were cultured under standard conditions. Confluent cells were wetted for 20 min with artificial tears (Arufil Uno, Arufil, Lacrimal, Lacophthal sine, Siccaprotect, Tears Again, Vidisept EDO, Vistil, Wet Comod) or PBS as a control. After exposure to a constant air flow for 0, 15, 30 and 45 minutes respectively, cells were incubated with the vital dye alamarBlue. Subsequently, absorption of the oxidised form of the dye was assessed using an ELISA-Reader.
RESULTS: Cell best survival rates in series 1 after 15 min were found for Lacrimal (0.89), Wet Comod (0.84) compared to PBS (0.66) and in series 2 for Vidisept EDO (0.57) and Lacrimal (0.56) compared to PBS (0.01). After 45 min highest survival was seen in series 1 for Lacrimal (0.46) and Lacophthal sine (0.36) compared to PBS (0.33) and in series 2 for Lacrimal (-0.06) and Arufil (-0.16) compared to PBS (-0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: Both cell lines tested showed different susceptibility towards desiccation and the artificial tears showed differences in preventing cells from desiccation.
MATERIAL/METHODS: Conjunctival epithelial cell line Chang 1-5c-4 (series 1) and the corneal cell line 2.040 pRSV-T (series 2) were cultured under standard conditions. Confluent cells were wetted for 20 min with artificial tears (Arufil Uno, Arufil, Lacrimal, Lacophthal sine, Siccaprotect, Tears Again, Vidisept EDO, Vistil, Wet Comod) or PBS as a control. After exposure to a constant air flow for 0, 15, 30 and 45 minutes respectively, cells were incubated with the vital dye alamarBlue. Subsequently, absorption of the oxidised form of the dye was assessed using an ELISA-Reader.
RESULTS: Cell best survival rates in series 1 after 15 min were found for Lacrimal (0.89), Wet Comod (0.84) compared to PBS (0.66) and in series 2 for Vidisept EDO (0.57) and Lacrimal (0.56) compared to PBS (0.01). After 45 min highest survival was seen in series 1 for Lacrimal (0.46) and Lacophthal sine (0.36) compared to PBS (0.33) and in series 2 for Lacrimal (-0.06) and Arufil (-0.16) compared to PBS (-0.23).
CONCLUSIONS: Both cell lines tested showed different susceptibility towards desiccation and the artificial tears showed differences in preventing cells from desiccation.