Tear proteins of normal young Hong Kong Chinese

Authors
Citation
V. Ng et al., Tear proteins of normal young Hong Kong Chinese, GR ARCH CL, 238(9), 2000, pp. 738-745
Citations number
34
Categorie Soggetti
Optalmology
Journal title
GRAEFES ARCHIVE FOR CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL OPHTHALMOLOGY
ISSN journal
0721832X → ACNP
Volume
238
Issue
9
Year of publication
2000
Pages
738 - 745
Database
ISI
SICI code
0721-832X(200009)238:9<738:TPONYH>2.0.ZU;2-U
Abstract
Background: Analysis of tear proteins is of diagnostic value for abnormal o cular conditions such as dry eye syndrome. Many studies of tear proteins ha ve been performed on Caucasian subjects. However, little is known about the se proteins in Chinese eyes. Methods: The total tear protein concentrations of 30 normal young Hong Kong Chinese were determined by the Bradford metho d and the modified Lowry method. Bovine serum albumin (BSA) and bovine immu noglobulin G (IgG) were both used as standards for each method. The tear pr otein patterns were determined by sodium dodecyl sulfate-polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis (SDS-PAGE), and the concentrations of major tear proteins were quantified by scanning densitometry after SDS-PAGE. Results: The mean/-SD total tear protein concentrations determined by the Bradford method, u sing BSA and IgG as standards, were 6.05+/-1.58 mg/ml and 11.48+/- 2.32 mg/ ml respectively. The values determined by the modified Lowry method, using the same two standards, were 9.66+/-2.03 mg/ml and 7.53+/-1.80 mg/ml respec tively. The mean+/-SD concentrations of major tear proteins were 2.73+/-0.8 2 mg/ml for lactoferrin, 0.021+/-0.028 mg/ml for human serum albumin, 2.89/- 0.88 mg/ml for tear-specific prealbumin and 2.46+/-0.44 mg/ml for lysozy me. Conclusion: The results of total tear protein concentrations indicated that values obtained from different methods and different standards were no t comparable. The tear protein patterns of our subjects were qualitatively similar to those reported for Caucasian subjects. However, the concentratio ns of the major proteins of our subjects were not in accordance with those reported previously. The main reason may be the large variability of method used.