Total views : 290

Mining the Contact Lens Adhering Bacteria through Machine Learning and Clinical Analysis

Affiliations

  • Department of Computer Science, Madurai Kamaraj University, Madurai - 625021, Tamil Nadu, India
  • Department of CA and IT, Thiagarajar College, Madurai - 625009, Tamil Nadu, India
  • Department of Zoology and Microbiology, Thiagarajar College, Madurai - 625009, Tamil Nadu, India

Abstract


Objectives: Even when studies report most of the Contact Lens (CLs) wearers possess improved vision, there are some potential risks with the development of microbial keratitis. This is in turn creates research issue under public health concern. Methods/Analysis: The methodology of the work determines the culture sensitivity of the recovered isolates from three different CLs users: Daily disposable lens, monthly disposable lens and yearly disposable lens. Findings: Through the machine learning tool called Waikato Environment for Knowledge Analysis (WEKA) and extensive clinical laboratory analysis, the study provides information on prevalent Contact Lens adhering bacteria involved in causing keratitis and examine microbial biofilm formation using Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) analysis. The sample type of the lens with the bacterial infections were then statistically analyzed, so that the knowledge mined would aid the medical practitioners in the treatment of bacterial keratitis. Novelty/Improvement: The present study supports the treatment of bacterial keratitis associated with Contact Lens users to reduce or to prevent the adverse effects caused by bacterial pathogens.

Keywords

Bacteria, Clinical, Contact Lens, Keratitis, Knowledge.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 227)

References


  • Al-Yousuf N. Microbial keratitis in kingdom of Bahrain: Clinical and microbiology study. Middle East African Journal Ophthalmology. 2009; 16(1):3–7.
  • Bertoluzza AP, Monti R, Simoni CR. Bacterial adhesion measurements on soft contact lenses using a modified Vortex device and Robins device. Journal of Material Science. 2004; 5:834–7.
  • Bharathi JM, Ramakrishnan R, Vasu S, Meenakshi R, Palaniappan R. In vitro efficacy of antibacterial against bacterial isolates from corneal ulcers. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2002; 50(2):109–14.
  • Blandino G, Marchese A, Ardito F, Fadda G, Fontana R, Lo Cascio G. Antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of Pseudomonasaeruginosa and Staphylococcusaureus isolated in Italy from patients with hospital acquired infections. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. 2004; 24(5):515–8.
  • Borazjani RN, Levy B, Ahearn DG. Relative primary adhesion of Pseudomonasaeruginosa, Serratiamarcescens and Staphylococcusaureus to HEMA-type Contact Lenses and an extended wear silicone hydrogel Contact Lens of high oxygen permeability. Contact Lens Ant Eye. 2004; 27(1):3–8.
  • Grosvenor T. Primary care optometry: Oxygen permeability of hydrogel lenses. 4th ed. New Delhi: Butterworth-Heinemann Publishers; 2002.
  • Giraldez MJ, Resua CG, Lira M. Contact Lens hydrophobicity and roughness effects on bacterial adhesion. Optometry and Vision Science. 2010; 87(6):426–31.
  • Garg P. Diagnosis of microbial keratitis. Br J Ophthalmol. 2010; 94:961–2.
  • Henriques M, Sousa C, Lira M. Adhesion of Pseudomonasaeruginosa and Staphylococcusepidermidis to Silicone-Hydrogel Contact Lenses. Optometry and Vision Science. 2005; 82(6):446–50.
  • Saenz MCG, Arias-Puente A, Fresnadillo-Martinez MJ, Rodriguez AM. In vitro adhesion of Staphylococcusepidermidis to intraocular lenses. J Cataract Refract Surg. 2000; 26(11):1673–9.
  • Holden BA, Sankaridurg P, Jalbert I. Adverse responses. Which ones and how many. Silicone hydrogels. The rebirth of continuous wear Contact Lenses.Sweeney DF, editor. Oxford: Butterworth Heinmann; 2000.
  • Wu YT, Zhu H, Harmis NY, Iskandar SY, Willcox M, Stapleton F. Profile and frequency of microbial contamination of Contact Lens cases. Optometry and Vision Science. 2010; 87(3):153–8.
  • Yamamoto N, Yamamoto N, Petroll WM. Internalization of Pseudomonasaeruginosa is mediated by lipid rafts in Contact Lens-wearing rabbit and cultured human corneal epithelial cells. Invest. Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2005; 46(4):1348–55.
  • Yeung KK, Forister JF, Forister EF, Chung MY, Han S, Weissman BA. Compliance with soft Contact Lens replacement schedules and associated Contact Lens-related ocular complications: The UCLA Contact Lens Study. Optometry. 2010; 81(11):598–607.
  • Zaidi TS, Zaidi T, Pier GB. Role of neutrophils, myd88-mediated neutrophil recruitment and complement in antibody-mediated defense against Pseudomonasaeruginosa keratitis. Invest. Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51(4):2085–93.
  • Padmaja RS, Savitri S, Mark W. Bacterial colonization of disposable soft Contact Lenses is greater during corneal infiltrative events than during asymptomatic extended lens wear. Journal of Clinical Microbiology. 2000; 38(12):4420–4.
  • Cappuccino JG, Sherman N. Microbiology – A laboratory manual. Harlow: Benjamin; 1999.
  • Bowman JP, McCammon SA, Brown JL, Nichols PD, McMeekin TA. Psychroserpensburtonensis gen. nov., sp. nov. and Gelidibacteralgensgen. nov., sp. nov., psychrophilic bacteria isolated from antarctic lacustrine and sea ice habitats. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1997; 47(3):670–7.
  • Shirling EB, Gottlieb D. Methods for characterization of Streptomyces species. Int J Syst Bacteriol. 1966; 16(3):313–40.
  • Locci R. Streptomycetes and related genera. Bergey’s Manual of systematic bacteriology. Sneath PHA, Mair NS, Shape ME, Holt JG. Editors. Baltimore; Williams and Wilkins; 1989.
  • Tresner HD, Hayes JS, Backus EJ. Differential tolerance of Streptomycetes to sodium chloride as a taxonomic tool. Appl Microbiol. 1968; 16(8):1134–6.
  • Schillinger U, Lucke F. Antibacterial activity of Lactobacillus sake isolated from meat. Appl Envron Microbiol. 1989; 55(8):1901–6.
  • Mubarack HM, Doss A, Dhanabalan R, Venkataswamy R. Activity of some selected medicinal plants against bovine mastitis pathogens. J Animal Vet Ad. 2007; 6(10):738–41.
  • Szliter EA, Barrett RP, Gabriel MM, Zhang Y, Hazlett LD. Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced inflammation in the rat extended-wear Contact Lens model. Eye Contact Lens. 2006; 32(1):12–8.
  • Bharathi MJ, Ramakrishnan R, Vasu S, Meenakshi R, Palaniappan R. In vitro efficacy of antibacterial against bacterial isolates from corneal ulcers. Indian Journal of Ophthalmology. 2002; 50(2):109–14.
  • Tam C, Mun JJ, Evans DJ. The impact of inoculation parameters on the pathogenesis of Contact Lens-related infectious keratitis. Invest. Ophthalmol Vis Sci. 2010; 51:3100–6.
  • Robert CB, Michael JS, Diane AB. Adhesion of bacteria to Contact Lens. Pal J Med Sci. 2007; 23(4):566–9.
  • Smitha S, Lalitha P, Prajna VN, Srinivasan M. Susceptibility trends of Pseudomonas species from corneal ulcers. Indian J Med Microbiol. 2005; 23:168–71.
  • Szczotka-Flynn LB, Imamura Y, Chandra J. Increased resistance of Contact Lens-related bacterial biofilms to antimicrobial activity of soft Contact Lens care solutions. Cornea. 2009; 28:918–26.

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.