, Volume 82, Issue 10, pp 1531–1539 | Cite as

Novel Molecular Descriptors for the Liquid- and the Gas-Chromatography Analysis of Amino Acids Analogues Derivatized with n-Propyl Chloroformate

  • Nikolaos Kritikos
  • Anna Tsantili-Kakoulidou
  • Yannis L. Loukas
  • Yannis DotsikasEmail author


The core idea behind this study was the utilization of the principal components (PCs) as a substitute of the original dataset of molecular descriptors for the derivatization products of amino acid analogues with n-propyl chloroformate. The derivatives were described through principal component analysis (PCA) with a total of over 1200 different molecular descriptors, split into groups according to their prime chemical characteristic. The form of the chemical space was modeled by PCA and optimized through a supervised procedure; whose quality was tested employing an internal cross-validation leave-more-out methodology supplying the Q2X metric (> 0.90 on most sets). The independent “spaces” formed contributed a total set of 63 variables (their PCs), the potential of which was evaluated through their application in two independent tests and more specifically in the formation of quantitative structure–retention relationships for two different chromatography systems (gas and liquid), based on published experimental data on those systems. The first model was developed through projection to latent structures methodology, while the second on multilinear regression (MLR). In both cases, the new derivatives’ descriptor set formed models of good quality (Q2Y  ≥ 0.9), validated through both internal and external test set validation procedures. Their ability to be used along with other variables in simpler modelling methods, like MLR, attests to their potential to be used in models of multivariate system calibration without blowing the dataset out of proportion. Regardless of the selected modelling method, data support their use for the composition of predictive models for analytical purposes.


LC–MS GC–MS Descriptors QSRR Amino acid Chloroformate 



This study was self-funded, no fund is received.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of interest

No conflict of interest of any kind.

Research involving human or animal participants

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Supplementary material

10337_2019_3767_MOESM1_ESM.docx (3.6 mb)
Supplementary file1 (DOCX 3733 kb)


  1. 1.
    Grover M, Singh B, Bakshi M, Singh S (2000) Quantitative structure–property relationships in pharmaceutical research—Part I. Pharm Sci Technol Today 3:28–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grover M, Singh B, Bakshi M, Singh S (2000) Quantitative structure–property relationships in pharmaceutical research—Part II. Pharm Sci Technol Today 3:50–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Katritzky AR, Lobanov VS, Karelson M (1995) QSPR: the correlation and quantitative prediction of chemical and physical properties from structure. Chem Soc Rev 24:279–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Izenman AJ (2008) Modern multivariate statistical techniques: regression, classification, and manifold learning, 1st edn. Springer, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Todeschini R, Consonni V (2009) Molecular descriptors for chemoinformatics, 2nd edn. Wiley, WeinheimCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Eriksson L, Johansson E, Kettaneh-Wold N, Trygg J, Wikström C, Wold S (2006) Multi- and megavariate data analysis part 1: principles and applications, 2nd edn. MKS Umetrics AB, UmeaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Box GEP, Cox DR (1964) An analysis of transformations. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol 26:211–252Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fink EL (2009) The FAQs on data transformation. Commun Monogr 76:379–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Varmuza K, Filzmoser P, Dehmer M (2013) Multivariate linear QSPR/QSAR models: rigorous evaluation of variable selection for PLS. Comput Struct Biotechnol J 5:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sneath PHA (1966) Relations between chemical structure and biological activity in peptides. J Theor Biol 12:157–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hellberg S, Sjostrom M, Skagerberg B, Wold S (1987) Peptide quantitative structure–activity relationships, a multivariate approach. J Med Chem 30:1126–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jonsson J, Eriksson L, Hellberg S, Sjostrom M, Wold S (1989) Multivariate parameterization of 55 coded and non-coded amino acids. Quant Strut Act Relat 8:204–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li SZ, Fu BH, Wang YQ, Liu SS (2001) On structural parameterization and molecular modeling of peptide analogues by molecular electronegativity-edge vector (VMEE): estimation and prediction for biological activity of pentapeptides. J Chin Chem Soc 48:937–944CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mei H, Zhou Y, Sun LL, Li ZL (2004) A new descriptor of amino acid and its application in peptide QSAR. Acta Phys Chim Sin 20:821–825Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Liang GZ, Zhou P, Zhou Y, Zhang QX, Li ZL (2006) New descriptors of amino acids and their applications to peptide quantitative structure activity relationship. Acta Chim Sin 64:393–396Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tian FF, Zhou P, Li ZL (2007) T-Scale as a novel vector of topological descriptors for amino acids and its application in QSARs of peptides. J Mol Struct 830:106–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Abdi H, Williams L (2010) Principal component analysis (overview). Wiley Interdiscip Rev Comput Stat 2:433–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hotelling H (1933) Analysis of a complex of statistical variables into principal components. J Educ Psychol 24:417–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Alterman M, Hunziker P (2012) Amino acid analysis: methods and protocols, methods in molecular biology, 828th edn. Humana Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zaikin V, Halket J (2006) Derivatization in mass spectroscopy: soft ionization mass spectrometry of small molecules. Eur J Mass Spectrom 12:79–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Quirke J, Adams C, Van Berkel G (1994) Chemical derivatization for electrospray ionization mass spectrometry: 1. Alkyl halides, alcochols, phenols, thiols and amines. Anal Chem 66:1302–1315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Danielson ND, Gallagher P, Bao J (2000) Chemical reagents and derivatization procedures in drug analysis. Encyclopedia of analytical chemistry. Wiley, Chichester, pp 7042–7076Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Husek P (1998) Chloroformates in gas chromatography as general purpose derivatizing agents. J Chromatogr B 717:57–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Badawy A, Morgan C, Turner J (2008) Application of the Phenomenex EZ: faast amino acid analysis kit for rapid gas-chromatographic determination of concentrations of plasma tryptophan and its brain uptake competitors. Amino Acids 34:587–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kostić Ν, Dotsikas Y, Malenović A, Medenica M (2013) Effects of derivatization reagents consisting of n-alkyl chloroformate/n-alcohol combinations in LC–ESI-MS/MS analysis of zwitterionic antiepileptic drugs. Talanta 116:91–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tetko IV, Gasteiger J, Todeschini R, Mauri A, Livingstone D, Ertl P, Palyulin VA, Radchenko EV, Zefirov NS, Makarenko AS, Tanchuk VY, Prokopenko VV (2005) Virtual computational chemistry laboratory-design and description. J Comput Aid Mol Des 19:453–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kritikos N, Tsantili-Kakoulidou A, Loukas YL, Dotsikas Y (2015) Liquid chromatography coupled to quadrupole-time of flight tandem mass spectrometry based quantitative structure–retention relationships of amino acid analogues derivatized via n-propyl chloroformate mediated reaction. J Chromatogr A 1403:70–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kaspar H, Dettmer K, Gronwald W, Oefner PJ (2008) Automated GC–MS analysis of free amino acids in biological fluids. J Chromatogr B 870:222–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Picard R, Cook R (1984) Cross-validation of regression models. J Am Stat Assoc 79:575–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hotelling H (1931) The generalization of Student's ratio. Ann Math Stat 2:360–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wold S, Sjostrom M, Eriksson L (2001) PLS-regression: a basic tool of chemometrics. Chem Int Lab Syst 58:109–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rannar S, Lindgren F, Geladi P, Wold S (1994) A PLS kernel algorithm for data sets with many variables and fewer objects. Part 1: theory and algorithm. J Chemom 8:11–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hotelling H (1936) Relations between two sets of variates. Biometrika 27:321–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wold S (1991) Validation of QSARs. Quant Struct Act Relat 10:191–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Arlot S, Celisse A (2010) A survey of cross-validation procedures for model selection. Statist Surv 4:40–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Collingridge DS (2013) A primer on quantitized data analysis and permutation testing. J Mix Methods Res 7:79–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Rodgers J, Nicewander W (1988) Thirteen ways to look at the correlation coefficient. Am Stat 42:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Farrar D, Glauber R (1967) Multicollinearity in regression analysis: the problem revisited. Rev Econ Stat 49:92–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Matsumoto M, Nishimura T (1998) Mersenne twister: a 623-dimensionally equidistributed uniform pseudo-random number generator. TOMACS 8:3–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Matsumoto M, Kurita Y (1992) Twisted GFSR generators. TOMACS 2:179–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 7:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Analysis, Department of PharmacyNational and Kapodistrian University of AthensAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations