A comparison of three liquid chromatography (LC) retention time prediction models
Andrew D McEachran1, Kamel Mansouri1, Seth R Newton2
1Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) Research Participation Program, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA; National Center for Computational Toxicology, Office of Research and Development, US Environmental Protection Agency, 109 T.W. Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA.
None:
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.
More Related Videos
11:00Untargeted Metabolomics from Biological Sources Using Ultraperformance Liquid Chromatography-High Resolution Mass Spectrometry UPLC-HRMS
Published on: May 20, 2013
07:59Author Spotlight: Alignment of Synchronized Time-Series Data Using the Characterizing Loss of Cell Cycle Synchrony Model for Cross-Experiment Comparisons
Published on: June 9, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Molecular Comparison of Gases, Liquids, and Solids
High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Introduction
In HPLC, two phases play a critical role in the separation process:
High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Instrumentation
High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Elution Process
High-Performance Liquid Chromatography: Types of Detectors
The Sense of Self: Reflected Self-Appraisal and Social Comparison
