105
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    8
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      A Comparison of Three Liquid Chromatography (LC) Retention Time Prediction Models

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          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 TM 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 TM logP-based RT model ( R 2=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-minute 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.

          Graphical abstract

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          2984816R
          22720
          Talanta
          Talanta
          Talanta
          0039-9140
          1873-3573
          9 July 2018
          11 January 2018
          15 May 2018
          15 May 2019
          : 182
          : 371-379
          Affiliations
          [a ]Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participation Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA 27711
          [b ]National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA 27711
          [c ]National Exposure Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA 27711
          Author notes
          [* ]Corresponding authors: Andrew D. McEachran, mceachran.andrew@ 123456epa.gov , Telephone: 1-919-541-3001, Fax: 1-919-541-1194, Antony J. Williams, williams.antony@ 123456epa.gov , Telephone: 1-919-541-1033, Fax: 1-919-541-1194
          [1 ]Present address: kmansouri@ 123456scitovation.com , ScitoVation, 6 Davis Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
          [2 ]Present address: brandy.beverly@ 123456nih.gov , Office of Health Assessment and Translation, Division of the National Toxicology Program, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
          Article
          PMC6066181 PMC6066181 6066181 epapa979929
          10.1016/j.talanta.2018.01.022
          6066181
          29501166
          257a37ec-10ea-4f5e-aaae-b4c2e5373c1e
          History
          Categories
          Article

          Quantitative Structure-Retention Relationship (QSRR),retention time (RT),high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC),non-targeted analysis (NTA),DSSTox

          Comments

          Comment on this article