1 / 3

Josue Puente conducts an eye exam at Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions in Provo.

Courtesy Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions

2 / 3

Kenneth Christensen is a Brigham Young University professor who leads the Christensen Research Group.

Courtesy Brigham Young University

3 / 3

Former Brigham Young University grad student Robert Roden is a doctor of optometry at the Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions.

Courtesy Rocky Mountain University

❮ ❯

Scientific evidence suggests the proteins from our tears are capable of detecting a variety of ocular and systemic diseases.

The issue is the two primary avenues of harvesting human tears, using a Schrimer strip or microcapillary tube, are often painful and intrusive.

Brigham Young University biochemistry professor Kenneth Christensen and former BYU grad student Robert Roden believe they found a better way.

In a recent study published by Clinical Proteomics, Christensen and Roden, who is now an optometry professor at Rocky Mountain University of Health Professions, concluded that soft contact lenses are an accessible tear-sampling method with the potential of surpassing the other two methods.

“If you use the traditional daily wear (contact), you have to keep cleaning them, because you get protein buildup,” Christensen said. “And so we thought, ‘Hey, contacts naturally collect proteins.’ And so we wondered whether we could sample tears just by having someone put in a contact lens.

“There were definitely promising results.”

In the study, Christensen and Roden had six patients test the three different sampling methods, then measured the types of tears captured by each method and how willing the patients were to conduct each test again.

The first method, using a Schirmer strip, involves sticking a strip of paper between your eye and eyelids. Christensen said it is often painful and induces “reflex tears,” which are diluted with proteins and liquids — making the tears less effective at identifying diseases.

Using a microcapillary tube can be more effective, Christensen believes, because it samples the basal tears ideal for disease detection. However, the method is more difficult to conduct.

Through the study, the contact lens approach stood out due to its simplicity in collecting the tears, and effectiveness in pulling basal tears.

“In our very small — and I emphasize very small — study, it seems that the people who had worn contact lenses were very enthusiastic,” Christensen said. “The people who had never worn contact lenses were slightly less enthusiastic. But all of them were enthusiastic at the idea that they might be able to self administer the contact.”

Christensen and Roden believe the method’s practicality could garner the interest of optometrists looking for a molecular approach to identifying eye disease.

Rodin, who now runs a clinic at the Rocky Mountain School of Optometry, has started collecting samples of clinics with different types of ocular diseases, including dry eye and blinding diseases.

“We’re going to assess the proteins we recover off the contact lenses and see if we can identify some biomarkers for these diseases that could find some utility in a typical visit to the eye doctor,” Christensen said.