Literature DB >> 29501166

A comparison of three liquid chromatography (LC) retention time prediction models.

Andrew D McEachran1, Kamel Mansouri2, Seth R Newton3, Brandiese E J Beverly4, Jon R Sobus5, Antony J Williams6.   

Abstract

High-resolution mass spectrometry (HRMS) data has revolutionized the identification of environmental contaminants through non-targeted analysis (NTA). However, chemical identification remains challenging due to the vast number of unknown molecular features typically observed in environmental samples. Advanced data processing techniques are required to improve chemical identification workflows. The ideal workflow brings together a variety of data and tools to increase the certainty of identification. One such tool is chromatographic retention time (RT) prediction, which can be used to reduce the number of possible suspect chemicals within an observed RT window. This paper compares the relative predictive ability and applicability to NTA workflows of three RT prediction models: (1) a logP (octanol-water partition coefficient)-based model using EPI Suite™ logP predictions; (2) a commercially available ACD/ChromGenius model; and, (3) a newly developed Quantitative Structure Retention Relationship model called OPERA-RT. Models were developed using the same training set of 78 compounds with experimental RT data and evaluated for external predictivity on an identical test set of 19 compounds. Both the ACD/ChromGenius and OPERA-RT models outperformed the EPI Suite™ logP-based RT model (R2 = 0.81-0.92, 0.86-0.83, 0.66-0.69 for training-test sets, respectively). Further, both OPERA-RT and ACD/ChromGenius predicted 95% of RTs within a ± 15% chromatographic time window of experimental RTs. Based on these results, we simulated an NTA workflow with a ten-fold larger list of candidate structures generated for formulae of the known test set chemicals using the U.S. EPA's CompTox Chemistry Dashboard (https://comptox.epa.gov/dashboard), RTs for all candidates were predicted using both ACD/ChromGenius and OPERA-RT, and RT screening windows were assessed for their ability to filter out unlikely candidate chemicals and enhance potential identification. Compared to ACD/ChromGenius, OPERA-RT screened out a greater percentage of candidate structures within a 3-min RT window (60% vs. 40%) but retained fewer of the known chemicals (42% vs. 83%). By several metrics, the OPERA-RT model, generated as a proof-of-concept using a limited set of open source data, performed as well as the commercial tool ACD/ChromGenius when constrained to the same small training and test sets. As the availability of RT data increases, we expect the OPERA-RT model's predictive ability will increase. Published by Elsevier B.V.

Entities:  

Keywords:  DSSTox; High-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC); Non-targeted analysis (NTA); Quantitative Structure-Retention Relationship (QSRR); Retention time (RT)

Year:  2018        PMID: 29501166      PMCID: PMC6066181          DOI: 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.01.022

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Talanta        ISSN: 0039-9140            Impact factor:   6.057


  34 in total

1.  Critical evaluation of screening techniques for emerging environmental contaminants based on accurate mass measurements with time-of-flight mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Joonas Nurmi; Jukka Pellinen; Anna-Lea Rantalainen
Journal:  J Mass Spectrom       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 1.982

2.  LC-high resolution MS in environmental analysis: from target screening to the identification of unknowns.

Authors:  Martin Krauss; Heinz Singer; Juliane Hollender
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2010-03-16       Impact factor: 4.142

Review 3.  Recent trends in the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry analysis of organic contaminants in environmental samples.

Authors:  Mira Petrovic; Marinella Farré; Miren Lopez de Alda; Sandra Perez; Cristina Postigo; Marianne Köck; Jelena Radjenovic; Merixell Gros; Damia Barcelo
Journal:  J Chromatogr A       Date:  2010-03-03       Impact factor: 4.759

4.  Critical evaluation of a simple retention time predictor based on LogKow as a complementary tool in the identification of emerging contaminants in water.

Authors:  Richard Bade; Lubertus Bijlsma; Juan V Sancho; Felix Hernández
Journal:  Talanta       Date:  2015-03-09       Impact factor: 6.057

5.  Suspect and nontarget screening approaches to identify organic contaminant records in lake sediments.

Authors:  Aurea C Chiaia-Hernandez; Emma L Schymanski; Praveen Kumar; Heinz P Singer; Juliane Hollender
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2014-09-26       Impact factor: 4.142

6.  Strategies to characterize polar organic contamination in wastewater: exploring the capability of high resolution mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Emma L Schymanski; Heinz P Singer; Philipp Longrée; Martin Loos; Matthias Ruff; Michael A Stravs; Cristina Ripollés Vidal; Juliane Hollender
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2014-01-14       Impact factor: 9.028

7.  Prediction Models of Retention Indices for Increased Confidence in Structural Elucidation during Complex Matrix Analysis: Application to Gas Chromatography Coupled with High-Resolution Mass Spectrometry.

Authors:  Eric Dossin; Elyette Martin; Pierrick Diana; Antonio Castellon; Aurelien Monge; Pavel Pospisil; Mark Bentley; Philippe A Guy
Journal:  Anal Chem       Date:  2016-07-22       Impact factor: 6.986

8.  Quantitative Structure-Retention Relationship Models To Support Nontarget High-Resolution Mass Spectrometric Screening of Emerging Contaminants in Environmental Samples.

Authors:  Reza Aalizadeh; Nikolaos S Thomaidis; Anna A Bletsou; Pablo Gago-Ferrero
Journal:  J Chem Inf Model       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 4.956

Review 9.  Integrating tools for non-targeted analysis research and chemical safety evaluations at the US EPA.

Authors:  Jon R Sobus; John F Wambaugh; Kristin K Isaacs; Antony J Williams; Andrew D McEachran; Ann M Richard; Christopher M Grulke; Elin M Ulrich; Julia E Rager; Mark J Strynar; Seth R Newton
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2017-12-29       Impact factor: 5.563

10.  MetFrag relaunched: incorporating strategies beyond in silico fragmentation.

Authors:  Christoph Ruttkies; Emma L Schymanski; Sebastian Wolf; Juliane Hollender; Steffen Neumann
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2016-01-29       Impact factor: 5.514

View more
  14 in total

1.  Comparison of emerging contaminants in receiving waters downstream of a conventional wastewater treatment plant and a forest-water reuse system.

Authors:  Andrew D McEachran; Melanie L Hedgespeth; Seth R Newton; Rebecca McMahen; Mark Strynar; Damian Shea; Elizabeth Guthrie Nichols
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2018-02-19       Impact factor: 4.223

2.  Non-targeted GC/MS analysis of exhaled breath samples: Exploring human biomarkers of exogenous exposure and endogenous response from professional firefighting activity.

Authors:  M Ariel Geer Wallace; Joachim D Pleil; Karen D Oliver; Donald A Whitaker; Sibel Mentese; Kenneth W Fent; Gavin P Horn
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health A       Date:  2019-03-23

Review 3.  Low-cost and open-source strategies for chemical separations.

Authors:  Joshua J Davis; Samuel W Foster; James P Grinias
Journal:  J Chromatogr A       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 4.759

4.  OPERA models for predicting physicochemical properties and environmental fate endpoints.

Authors:  Kamel Mansouri; Chris M Grulke; Richard S Judson; Antony J Williams
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2018-03-08       Impact factor: 5.514

Review 5.  Current Challenges in Plant Eco-Metabolomics.

Authors:  Kristian Peters; Anja Worrich; Alexander Weinhold; Oliver Alka; Gerd Balcke; Claudia Birkemeyer; Helge Bruelheide; Onno W Calf; Sophie Dietz; Kai Dührkop; Emmanuel Gaquerel; Uwe Heinig; Marlen Kücklich; Mirka Macel; Caroline Müller; Yvonne Poeschl; Georg Pohnert; Christian Ristok; Victor Manuel Rodríguez; Christoph Ruttkies; Meredith Schuman; Rabea Schweiger; Nir Shahaf; Christoph Steinbeck; Maria Tortosa; Hendrik Treutler; Nico Ueberschaar; Pablo Velasco; Brigitte M Weiß; Anja Widdig; Steffen Neumann; Nicole M van Dam
Journal:  Int J Mol Sci       Date:  2018-05-06       Impact factor: 5.923

6.  Open-source QSAR models for pKa prediction using multiple machine learning approaches.

Authors:  Kamel Mansouri; Neal F Cariello; Alexandru Korotcov; Valery Tkachenko; Chris M Grulke; Catherine S Sprankle; David Allen; Warren M Casey; Nicole C Kleinstreuer; Antony J Williams
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2019-09-18       Impact factor: 5.514

Review 7.  Insight into chemical basis of traditional Chinese medicine based on the state-of-the-art techniques of liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.

Authors:  Yang Yu; Changliang Yao; De-An Guo
Journal:  Acta Pharm Sin B       Date:  2021-02-26       Impact factor: 11.413

8.  "MS-Ready" structures for non-targeted high-resolution mass spectrometry screening studies.

Authors:  Andrew D McEachran; Kamel Mansouri; Chris Grulke; Emma L Schymanski; Christoph Ruttkies; Antony J Williams
Journal:  J Cheminform       Date:  2018-08-30       Impact factor: 5.514

9.  Using LC Retention Times in Organic Structure Determination: Drug Metabolite Identification.

Authors:  William L Fitch; Cyrus Khojasteh; Ignacio Aliagas; Kevin Johnson
Journal:  Drug Metab Lett       Date:  2018

10.  In silico MS/MS spectra for identifying unknowns: a critical examination using CFM-ID algorithms and ENTACT mixture samples.

Authors:  Alex Chao; Hussein Al-Ghoul; Andrew D McEachran; Ilya Balabin; Tom Transue; Tommy Cathey; Jarod N Grossman; Randolph R Singh; Elin M Ulrich; Antony J Williams; Jon R Sobus
Journal:  Anal Bioanal Chem       Date:  2020-01-22       Impact factor: 4.142

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.