People Who Wear Contacts Have Different Eye Microbiomes

A higher diversity of bacteria lives on the eye surface of lens wearers and could explain higher infection rates

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

People who wear contact lenses often acquire unwelcome microbial guests along with the convenience afforded by this eyewear. In fact, a higher diversity of bacteria lives on the eye surface of lens wearers than that of the naked-eye crowd, according to an extensive classification effort by microbiologists at New York University's Langone Medical Center. This difference may help explain why lens poppers develop eye infections up to seven times more frequently than they would otherwise.

In an effort to map the ocular microbiome, the researchers sequenced hundreds of swabs from the eyes and eyelids of 11 people who do not wear lenses and nine of those who do. Wearers had about three times the typical proportion of Methylobacterium, Lactobacillus, Acinetobacter and Pseudomonas bacteria. Although the first three bugs are typically harmless, Pseudomonas entering a scratched cornea can result in an infection, triggering redness, pain and blurred vision. Left untreated, the condition may lead to blindness. These same bacterial groups tend to hang out innocuously on our skin, says N.Y.U.'s Lisa Park. This means they most likely hitch a ride on users' fingers during the act of inserting lenses, suggesting an instantaneous shift in the regional microbiome.

Additional results from the study support such a conclusion: the researchers found that the composition of bacteria living on the eyes of people who sport disposable lenses was more similar to that of their skin than was the case among people who don't need lenses. “It's not a definitive connection,” Park says, “but it's very intriguing.” The physical characteristics of the lenses themselves, such as the pressure they place on the eye, could also foster bacterial growth.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


All told, the researchers identified about 10,000 distinct strains of bacteria in their samples. Knowing the exact microbial community in a patient's eye could help doctors treat infections with targeted antibiotics, says Jack Gilbert, a microbiologist at the University of Chicago who was not affiliated with the study.

To avoid infections altogether, however, contact lens wearers should assiduously follow best practices with their eyesight enhancers: wash hands thoroughly before handling lenses, use fresh saline solution to rinse and store them, and replace cases every three months. At least that way, the welcome mat for tiny, menacing orbital guests should shrink.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe