Skip to main content
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems
  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Main menu

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
  • ASM
    • Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy
    • Applied and Environmental Microbiology
    • Clinical Microbiology Reviews
    • Clinical and Vaccine Immunology
    • EcoSal Plus
    • Eukaryotic Cell
    • Infection and Immunity
    • Journal of Bacteriology
    • Journal of Clinical Microbiology
    • Journal of Microbiology & Biology Education
    • Journal of Virology
    • mBio
    • Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews
    • Microbiology Resource Announcements
    • Microbiology Spectrum
    • Molecular and Cellular Biology
    • mSphere
    • mSystems

User menu

  • Log in
  • My alerts
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
publisher-logosite-logo

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Articles
    • Current Issue
    • Accepted Manuscripts
    • COVID-19 Special Collection
    • Archive
    • Minireviews
  • For Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Scope
    • Editorial Policy
    • Submission, Review, & Publication Processes
    • Organization and Format
    • Errata, Author Corrections, Retractions
    • Illustrations and Tables
    • Nomenclature
    • Abbreviations and Conventions
    • Publication Fees
    • Ethics Resources and Policies
  • About the Journal
    • About JCM
    • Editor in Chief
    • Editorial Board
    • For Reviewers
    • For the Media
    • For Librarians
    • For Advertisers
    • Alerts
    • RSS
    • FAQ
  • Subscribe
    • Members
    • Institutions
The Brief Case

The Brief Case: A “Fresh” Pair of Contact Lenses

Eugene M. Tan, Matthew R. Starr, Michael R. Henry, Bobbi S. Pritt
Carey-Ann D. Burnham, Editor
Eugene M. Tan
aDivision of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Eugene M. Tan
Matthew R. Starr
bDepartment of Ophthalmology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Michael R. Henry
cDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Bobbi S. Pritt
aDivision of Infectious Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
cDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carey-Ann D. Burnham
Washington University School of Medicine
Roles: Editor
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00790-17
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

CASE

A 27-year-old male presented to an emergency department in Minnesota during the summer of 2016 with 4 days of photophobia, irritation, erythema, edema, and increased lacrimation. Symptoms were present in both eyes but worse on the right. He reported decreased visual acuity in the right eye. Past medical history was significant only for myopia, for which he had been wearing soft contact lenses for many years.

The patient reported that, 4 weeks prior to presentation, he swam in a lake while wearing contact lenses. Two weeks prior to presentation, he also went on a boat ride, and fresh water from the lake splashed into his eyes. Though he had worn the same pair of contact lenses during this time period, he stopped wearing them and switched to eyeglasses when his symptoms began. He retained his contact lenses in his case, however, for future possible use.

The right eye had a slightly decreased visual acuity of 20/40. Ophthalmologic examination of the right eye demonstrated central corneal haze, irregular epithelium, and a few areas of punctate staining with fluorescein but no frank ulceration, which was felt to be most consistent with contact lens-associated bacterial keratitis. No abnormalities were noted in the left eye. Given these findings, treatment was initiated with topical ophthalmic moxifloxacin in the right eye only (1 drop of 0.5% ophthalmic solution 6 times a day), and he was instructed to continue avoiding lens use. He was followed daily in the ophthalmology clinic and was noted to have no improvement in his symptoms or upon his exam. He was also beginning to develop similar problems with the left eye.

Two days after his initial presentation, enlarged corneal nerves were noted in both eyes. Given the history of freshwater exposure, contact lens use, and keratoneuritis upon exam (Fig. 1A), empirical treatment was initiated with hourly 0.02% chlorhexidine gluconate ophthalmic drops for possible Acanthamoeba keratitis. Cultures for free-living amebae from his right and left contact lenses and residual contact lens solution within his lens case confirmed the presence of Acanthamoeba species, and in vivo confocal microscopy revealed characteristic Acanthamoeba cysts on the anterior stroma of the right eye (Fig. 1B) (1). Cytologic examination of the residual contact lens solution in the case was also consistent with Acanthamoeba infection (Fig. 2). The diagnosis was further confirmed using a modified version of a previously published real-time PCR assay for free-living amebae, which was positive for Acanthamoeba species in the residual contact lens solution in the case (2). Of note, there was also the following polymicrobial growth from routine bacterial cultures of his contact lenses and solution: Achromobacter xylosoxidans, Alcaligenes faecalis, Brevundimonas diminuta, Elizabethkingia meningoseptica, Mycobacterium chelonae, Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Serratia marcescens, and Staphylococcus epidermidis. Numerous bacteria were also seen on cytology preparations. The polymicrobial growth from the contact lens case may have represented normal bacterial flora of a typical contact lens case. However, for empirical coverage of potential Gram-negative pathogens, moxifloxacin ophthalmic drops were resumed for 7 days.

FIG 1
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 1

(A and B) Enlarged corneal nerves (white arrow in panel A) of the right eye suggestive of keratoneuritis. Confocal microscopy (×40 magnification) revealed characteristic Acanthamoeba cysts in the anterior stroma of the right eye (white arrow in panel B).

FIG 2
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
FIG 2

Hematoxylin- and eosin-stained sections of the cell block cytologic preparation made from the contact lens solution submitted in the case with the lenses. Magnification, ×1,000. (A and B) Characteristic Acanthamoeba trophozoites (8 to 40 μm), with a bubbly cytoplasm and small nucleus containing a large central karyosome, are shown. (C) Two double-walled cysts of approximately 10 to 25 μm (arrows) are shown. Note the significant amount of bacteria that is also present in the specimen (asterisks).

For Acanthamoeba keratitis, he was treated with an intensive phase of hourly 0.02% chlorhexidine gluconate drops (one drop in each eye) for 3 weeks, followed by four-times-daily dosing for 5 months, twice-daily dosing for 3 months, and then daily suppressive dosing to complete 1 year. Within 6 months, the patient's symptoms improved back to baseline, and his visual acuity in both eyes was 20/20.

DISCUSSION

Acanthamoeba is a genus of free-living amebae that is ubiquitous in nature and can be found in soil, dust, air, sewage, seawater, tap water, and fresh water sources (1, 3). Acanthamoeba can survive under a wide range of conditions with varying osmolarity, temperature, and pH, including levels of chlorination found in municipal water supplies (3).

Acanthamoeba have both cyst and trophozoite stages. Trophozoites are the active, feeding form of the organism, while cysts are the dormant, environmentally resistant form (3). Trophozoites are pleomorphic and have characteristic fine acanthopodia, which allow for movement, adhesion to surfaces, and attachment to prey, such as bacteria or algae. Under adverse conditions, the trophozoite differentiates into a uninucleate cyst, which is resistant to desiccation, starvation, and other environmental changes (3).

There are more than 24 species of Acanthamoeba. Species that can cause human disease include A. castellanii, A. culbertsoni, A. hatchetti, A. healyi, and A. astronyxis. In an immunocompromised host, Acanthamoeba species cause granulomatous amebic encephalitis as well as infections of the skin, nasopharynx, lung, and kidney. In an immunocompetent host, Acanthamoeba can cause keratitis (3). Other microbial causes of keratitis are listed in Table 1.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Common microbiologic causes of keratitis

Acanthamoeba keratitis, also known as amebic keratitis (AK), is a severe ocular infection in which the leading risk factor is contact lens use (4). The risk is higher with soft contact lens use, as cysts can attach more easily to this type of material. Among the soft contact lenses, Acanthamoeba adheres best to silicone hydrogel and nonionic lenses. Rigid gas-permeable lenses have a lower incidence, as Acanthamoeba can be more easily removed from this hard surface (5).

Poor hygiene, infrequent replacement of storage cases, and overnight contact lens wear further increase the risk (4). Another risk factor is corneal trauma with exposure to soil or water. Acanthamoeba gain access to the lens case by tap water or air, adhere well to hydrophilic plastic lenses, and grow rapidly on lenses if they are worn for prolonged periods and not cleaned properly (1). Acanthamoeba can reach densities as high as 105/ml of contact lens solution (1). Acanthamoeba species produce virulence factors, such as adhesins, neuraminidases, proteases, and superoxide dismutases, that can increase pathogenicity (1).

Common symptoms of AK are pain, photophobia, and increased lacrimation, often out of proportion to exam findings. Early in the infection, a diffuse keratopathy can be found, as the organism remains superficial and can cause epitheliitis or radial keratoneuritis (1). AK is also typically characterized by a ring-like or annular corneal infiltrate (6). As Acanthamoeba trophozoites penetrate deeper into the corneal stroma, however, they can cause stromal keratitis (1).

AK can be diagnosed clinically by confocal microscopy, which demonstrates hyper-reflective, spherical, double-walled cysts (Fig. 1) (1). However, confocal microscopy is often available only in specialized ophthalmology clinics; therefore, definitive diagnosis is established with a corneal scrape specimen for microscopy, culture, and/or nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) (1). Swabs are suboptimal for diagnosis using microscopy and culture and should be avoided. To prepare a proper sample for analysis, material obtained via corneal scraping should be placed in 200 μl of sterile saline to prevent desiccation. Contact lens solution can be submitted in the lens case directly to the microbiology and cytology laboratories for processing.

Cysts and trophozoites are most commonly visualized on stained preparations using light microscopy. Various stains, including Giemsa, hematoxylin and eosin (H&E), Papanicolaou, Gomori methenamine silver (GMS), periodic acid-Schiff (PAS), and Masson's trichrome stains, will highlight the organisms. Cysts can also easily be visualized using lactophenol-cotton blue, acridine orange, and calcofluor white preparations (1). Antibody-based techniques, such as indirect immunofluorescence and immunoperoxidase staining, can also be used for identification. Trophozoites measure 8 to 40 μm at their greatest dimension and have bubbly or finely granular cytoplasm and a relatively small single nucleus with a large central karyosome (Fig. 2A and B). Cysts measure 10 to 25 μm and have a characteristic double wall, an inner spherical, hexagonal, polygonal, or star-shaped wall (endocyst), and an outer wrinkled fibrous wall (ectocyst) (7).

The plate culture technique is considered the gold standard for diagnosis (1). Corneal scrapings can be applied onto a nonnutrient or nutrient-poor agar covered with nonmucoid bacteria, such as Escherichia coli. Plates are sealed and incubated at 30°C. Over the next 5 to 7 days, a laboratory technician then uses inverted phase-contrast microscopy to screen the plates daily for signs of Acanthamoeba (1). Cysts begin to form after 2 to 3 days of culture, and therefore, both cysts and trophozoites are generally seen. More recently, various NAATs have been described for detection and identification of Acanthamoeba species in clinical specimens (2, 6).

The preferred therapy for AK is a topical biguanide, such as polyhexamethylene biguanide hydrochloride (PHMB) or chlorhexidine gluconate (CLX). Diamidine derivatives, such as hexamidine isethionate, are also effective treatments but should not be used as monotherapy due to potential resistance (6). Topical instillation should be performed hourly for at least the first 72 h but can be extended to a few weeks. This initial intensive phase of treatment can be followed by four-times-daily dosing of chlorhexidine. Duration typically lasts several months. As these topical agents may cause chemical toxicity in the cornea, long-term follow-up is recommended (6).

Unfortunately, topical biguanides may not be able to penetrate the deep corneal stroma, where the Acanthamoeba organisms can invade. The acid-insoluble proteins and alkali-insoluble polysaccharides of the cystic wall may also render Acanthamoeba resistant to topical treatments (6). If the patient does not respond to therapy, a combination of a biguanide and a diamidine can be used. Topical or oral voriconazole can be administered as second-line therapy as well (6).

If medical therapies fail, therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty may be used if infection spreads to the corneal stroma. This procedure involves excision of localized infection and implantation of donor tissue into an undamaged, immunocompetent bed of tissue. Newer techniques include bipedicle conjunctival flap and cryopreserved amniotic membrane graft, which may improve the quality of the ocular surface. However, therapeutic penetrating keratoplasty remains the optimal treatment option, especially with large corneal perforations (1).

In conclusion, AK should be considered in the differential diagnosis whenever any patient with contact lenses or corneal trauma presents with pain, photophobia, or lacrimation (1). If a diagnosis of AK can be established early with plate culture or NAAT, then treatment with a topical biguanide can be more effective while the infection is early and superficial.

SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS

  1. Which of the following are included in the life cycle of Acanthamoeba?

    1. Cyst and schizont

    2. Bradyzoite and tachyzoite

    3. Trophozoite and cyst

    4. Trophozoite and flagellate

  2. Which of the following is the gold standard for laboratory diagnosis of Acanthamoeba keratitis?

    1. Confocal microscopy

    2. Plate culture

    3. Indirect immunofluorescence

    4. Matrix-assisted laser desorption–ionization time of flight (MALDI-TOF) mass spectrometry

  3. The most significant risk factor for Acanthamoeba keratitis is which of the following?

    1. Contact lens use

    2. Corneal trauma

    3. Immunocompromised state

    4. Swimming in contaminated water

For answers to the self-assessment questions and take-home points, see https://doi.org/10.1128/JCM.00791-17 in this issue.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

  • Copyright © 2018 American Society for Microbiology.

All Rights Reserved.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Lorenzo-Morales J,
    2. Khan NA,
    3. Walochnik J
    . 2015. An update on Acanthamoeba keratitis: diagnosis, pathogenesis and treatment. Parasite 22:10. doi:10.1051/parasite/2015010.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. 2.↵
    1. Qvarnstrom Y,
    2. Visvesvara GS,
    3. Sriram R,
    4. da Silva AJ
    . 2006. Multiplex real-time PCR assay for simultaneous detection of Acanthamoeba spp., Balamuthia mandrillaris, and Naegleria fowleri. J Clin Microbiol 44:3589–3595. doi:10.1128/JCM.00875-06.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    1. Trabelsi H,
    2. Dendana F,
    3. Sellami A,
    4. Sellami H,
    5. Cheikhrouhou F,
    6. Neji S,
    7. Makni F,
    8. Ayadi A
    . 2012. Pathogenic free-living amoebae: epidemiology and clinical review. Pathol Biol (Paris) 60:399–405. doi:10.1016/j.patbio.2012.03.002.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    1. Collier SA,
    2. Gronostaj MP,
    3. MacGurn AK,
    4. Cope JR,
    5. Awsumb KL,
    6. Yoder JS,
    7. Beach MJ
    , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2014. Estimated burden of keratitis—United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 63:1027–1030.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Youhanna W,
    2. Ibrahim DLB,
    3. Cree IA
    . 2009. How could contact lens wearers be at risk of Acanthamoeba infection? Rev J Optom 2:60–66. doi:10.3921/joptom.2009.60.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. 6.↵
    1. Carrijo-Carvalho LC,
    2. Sant'ana VP,
    3. Foronda AS,
    4. de Freitas D,
    5. de Souza Carvalho FR
    . 2016. Therapeutic agents and biocides for ocular infections by free-living amoebae of Acanthamoeba genus. Surv Ophthalmol doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2016.10.009.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  7. 7.↵
    1. Ash LR,
    2. Orihel TC
    . 2007. Ash & Orihel's atlas of human parasitology, 5th ed. American Society for Clinical Pathology Press, Chicago, IL.
  8. 8.
    1. Azher TN,
    2. Yin XT,
    3. Tajfirouz D,
    4. Huang AJ,
    5. Stuart PM
    . 2017. Herpes simplex keratitis: challenges in diagnosis and clinical management. Clin Ophthalmol 11:185–191. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S80475.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  9. 9.
    1. Bialasiewicz A
    . 2007. Adenoviral keratoconjunctivitis. Sultan Qaboos Univ Med J 7:15–23.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.
    1. Shaikh S,
    2. Ta CN
    . 2002. Evaluation and management of herpes zoster ophthalmicus. Am Fam Physician 66:1723–1730.
    OpenUrlPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.
    1. Catron T,
    2. Hern HG
    . 2008. Herpes zoster ophthalmicus. West J Emerg Med 9:174–176.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.
    1. Sy A,
    2. Srinivasan M,
    3. Mascarenhas J,
    4. Lalitha P,
    5. Rajaraman R,
    6. Ravindran M,
    7. Oldenburg CE,
    8. Ray KJ,
    9. Glidden D,
    10. Zegans ME,
    11. McLeod SD,
    12. Lietman TM,
    13. Acharya NR
    . 2012. Pseudomonas aeruginosa keratitis: outcomes and response to corticosteroid treatment. Invest Ophthalmol Vis Sci 53:267–272. doi:10.1167/iovs.11-7840.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. 13.
    1. Hue B,
    2. Doat M,
    3. Renard G,
    4. Brandely ML,
    5. Chast F
    . 2009. Severe keratitis caused by Pseudomonas aeruginosa successfully treated with ceftazidime associated with acetazolamide. J Ophthalmol 2009:794935. doi:10.1155/2009/794935.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.
    1. Ong SJ,
    2. Huang YC,
    3. Tan HY,
    4. Ma DH,
    5. Lin HC,
    6. Yeh LK,
    7. Chen PY,
    8. Chen HC,
    9. Chuang CC,
    10. Chang CJ,
    11. Hsiao CH
    . 2013. Staphylococcus aureus keratitis: a review of hospital cases. PLoS One 8:e80119. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080119.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  15. 15.
    1. Amadasi S,
    2. Pelliccioli GF,
    3. Colombini P,
    4. Bonomini A,
    5. Farina C,
    6. Pietrantonio F,
    7. Pedroni P
    . 2017. Contact lens-related Fusarium keratitis: a case report. Infez Med 25:166–168.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.
    1. Prajna NV,
    2. Krishnan T,
    3. Rajaraman R,
    4. Patel S,
    5. Shah R,
    6. Srinivasan M,
    7. Devi L,
    8. Das M,
    9. Ray KJ,
    10. O'Brien KS,
    11. Oldenburg CE,
    12. McLeod SD,
    13. Zegans ME,
    14. Acharya NR,
    15. Lietman TM,
    16. Rose-Nussbaumer J
    , Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial Group. 2017. Adjunctive oral voriconazole treatment of Fusarium keratitis: a secondary analysis from the Mycotic Ulcer Treatment Trial II. JAMA Ophthalmol 135:520–525. doi:10.1001/jamaophthalmol.2017.0616.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  17. 17.
    1. Mehta H,
    2. Mehta HB,
    3. Garg P,
    4. Kodial H
    . 2008. Voriconazole for the treatment of refractory Aspergillus fumigatus keratitis. Indian J Ophthalmol 56:243–245. doi:10.4103/0301-4738.40369.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  18. 18.
    1. Winchester K,
    2. Mathers WD,
    3. Sutphin JE
    . 1997. Diagnosis of Aspergillus keratitis in vivo with confocal microscopy. Cornea 16:27–31. doi:10.1097/00003226-199701000-00006.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  19. 19.
    1. Sun RL,
    2. Jones DB,
    3. Wilhelmus KR
    . 2007. Clinical characteristics and outcome of Candida keratitis. Am J Ophthalmol 143:1043–1045. doi:10.1016/j.ajo.2007.02.016.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  20. 20.
    1. Alkatan HM,
    2. Al-Zaaidi S,
    3. Athmanathan S
    . 2012. Microsporidial keratitis: literature review and report of 2 cases in a tertiary eye care center. Saudi J Ophthalmol 26:199–203. doi:10.1016/j.sjopt.2012.02.007.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
PreviousNext
Back to top
Download PDF
Citation Tools
The Brief Case: A “Fresh” Pair of Contact Lenses
Eugene M. Tan, Matthew R. Starr, Michael R. Henry, Bobbi S. Pritt
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Apr 2018, 56 (5) e00790-17; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00790-17

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Print

Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email

Thank you for sharing this Journal of Clinical Microbiology article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
The Brief Case: A “Fresh” Pair of Contact Lenses
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from Journal of Clinical Microbiology
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in Journal of Clinical Microbiology.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
The Brief Case: A “Fresh” Pair of Contact Lenses
Eugene M. Tan, Matthew R. Starr, Michael R. Henry, Bobbi S. Pritt
Journal of Clinical Microbiology Apr 2018, 56 (5) e00790-17; DOI: 10.1128/JCM.00790-17
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Top
  • Article
    • CASE
    • DISCUSSION
    • SELF-ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS
    • ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    • REFERENCES
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

KEYWORDS

Acanthamoeba
ameba
keratitis
contact lens

Related Articles

Cited By...

About

  • About JCM
  • Editor in Chief
  • Board of Editors
  • Editor Conflicts of Interest
  • For Reviewers
  • For the Media
  • For Librarians
  • For Advertisers
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • FAQ
  • Permissions
  • Journal Announcements

Authors

  • ASM Author Center
  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Article Types
  • Resources for Clinical Microbiologists
  • Ethics
  • Contact Us

Follow #JClinMicro

@ASMicrobiology

       

ASM Journals

ASM journals are the most prominent publications in the field, delivering up-to-date and authoritative coverage of both basic and clinical microbiology.

About ASM | Contact Us | Press Room

 

ASM is a member of

Scientific Society Publisher Alliance

 

American Society for Microbiology
1752 N St. NW
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 737-3600

 

Copyright © 2021 American Society for Microbiology | Privacy Policy | Website feedback

Print ISSN: 0095-1137; Online ISSN: 1098-660X