Indian Journal of Ophthalmology

: 1981  |  Volume : 29  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 203--205

Antilens antibody in normal persons and in different clinical conditions

RN Misra, D Srivastava, V Misra 
 State Institute ophthalmology, M.D. Eye Hospital Allahabad, India

Correspondence Address:
R N Misra
State Institute ophthalmology, M.D. Eye Hospital Allahabad

How to cite this article:
Misra R N, Srivastava D, Misra V. Antilens antibody in normal persons and in different clinical conditions.Indian J Ophthalmol 1981;29:203-205

How to cite this URL:
Misra R N, Srivastava D, Misra V. Antilens antibody in normal persons and in different clinical conditions. Indian J Ophthalmol [serial online] 1981 [cited 2024 Mar 1 ];29:203-205
Available from:

Full Text

Lens antigen plays a major role in the production of phako-allergic endophalmitis (Endophthalmitis phakoanaphylactica). As the controversy exists in literature about the pre�sence of Antilens antibody in healthy human sera i.e. Hachel & Thompson[1] 50% Luntz[2] 4.4%. To solve this controversy we have studi�ed the presence of antileus antibody in healthy individual Sera & in different clinical con�ditions.


The study was conducted on the serum of various patients in Institute of Ophthalmology, London & State Institute of Ophthalmology, Allahabad. The sera was deep frozen and stored in aliquots. A group of rabbits received the intra muscular injection of heterologous lens at every 10 days interval. The animals were killed after 7th immunisation. The serum was collected and tested for antilens antibody. The immunized rabbit serum acted as - positive control. The negative control was from some healthy normal person. The antibodies against lens were observed by agar gel diffussion (Ouc�hterlony test). The passive haemaggluti-nation test. The agar gel diffussion was performed at room temperature on glassplates coated with 1.5 percent agar in barbitone buffer (PH 8.2). The plates were washed 5 days later, first in 3 percent saline and then in distilled water, After drying at 37�C plates were stained with 0.1 percent nigrosine.


The technique used for coating the formal�ised sheep red cells with lens antigens was essentially same as described earlier[3]. The serum from normal person and from patients of different clinical condition were also inacti�vated and preadsorbed with unsensitised sheep red cells and were tested. Positive control was the serum from lens immunised animal with sensitized sheep cells. Proper controls were set up with sensitised cell in buffer alone and with non immune serum obtained from the animals before initial immunization. Controls were also set up using unsensitised cells with & without serum.


The study was conducted on 123 cases, out of which 30 cases were completely normal, 20 suffered from chronic simple glaucoma, 40 had iritis, 10 had seleritis, 4 had episcleritis 3 had retinal vasculitis, 4 had acute choroiditis, 8 had phakolytic glaucoma and 4 had phako�allergic endophthalmitis.


Serum from all the cases did not reveal any antilens antibody when tested by simple agar deffusion (Ouchterlony) method, while the serum from lens immunized animals showed the precipitinlines.


This technique showed the positive reaction in the serum of patients as shown in the [Table 1].

The titre of antilens antibody in the cases where the antilens antibodies present were as shown in [Table 2].

As shown in table, the majority of cases showed the positive reaction only in dilution of 1:10, two case of uveitis showed also posit�ive reaction in 1:20 dilution. Out of four cases of phako allergic endophthalmitis 2 cases showed the antilens antibody in dilution 1:320 & 1:160.


Out of 30 normal cases, we observed anti�lens antibody in 1 case 13.3 percent in 1:10 diluted. Hackett and Thompson[1] in 186 cases of blood donors showed the presence of antilens antibody in 49 percent of cases out of this 32 percent were in less than 1:10 and 11 percent has less than 1:20. Only 6 percent normal cases showed in more than 1:20 dilut�ion of serum. Due to cross reactivity of anti�lens antibody with various intra and extra ocular tissues and many other factors, the reaction may be positive in less than 1:10 dilution. Thus in our whole study of experi�mental phakoallergic endophthalmitis in rabbit we considered only the serum delution of 1:10 or more as positive reaction. Our findings very well correlate with findings of Luntz[5] who also demonstrated the antilens antibody in 3 to 4 percent of normal cases. However Halbert etal[6] failed to demonstrate antilens antibody in any of the 200 mormal cases and it can be attributed to his less sensitive techni�que i.e. precipitating technique.

In chronic simple glaucoma, the antilens antibody was present in 5 percent cases. In Iritis, scleritis, opiscleritis & phakolytic glau�coma the antilens antibody was respectively present in 20 percent, 20 percent, 25 percent and 12.5 percent of cases, but the titre of antilens antibody was not higher than 1:40 in any case.

In phakoallergic endophthalmitis out of four cases antilens antibody was seen in half of the cases. The titre in one was 1:320 dilution and 1:60 in another. This confirmed, the autoalle�rgy pathogenesis in production of phakoallergic endophthalmitis. The report of presence of antilens antibody in different clinical conditions and also in cases of phakoallergic endophthal�mitis are very few and needs to be further studied.


The study was conducted on 123 cases. The antilens antibodies were demonstrated by haernagglutination test, in 13.3 percent normal, 5 percent chronic simple glaucoma, 20 percent glaucoma and 5 percent phakocallergic endophthalimits cases. Retinal vasculitis and acute choroditis did not show antillens antibody in any case.


1Hackett, E and Thompson, A, 1964,. Lancet i.i : 663
2Luntz, M. H. and Wright, R, 1962. EXP. Eye Research 1.317.
3Rahi, A.H.S., Misra, R.N. Morgan, G, 1977, B. J. ophthalmol 61, 164.
4Misra; R. N., Rahi, A. H. S., Morgan, 1977, B. J ophthalmol, 61, 285.
5Luntz, M.H., 1968, EXP.Eye Research 7.561.
6Halbert, S.R. Loeateher Khorazo, D, Swieck L, Witmer, R, Seegal B and Fltzgerald, P., 1957, J EXP, Med. 105,5, 439.