4.7 Article

Reversed-phase fused-core HPLC modeling of peptides

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL ANALYSIS
Volume 3, Issue 2, Pages 93-101

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpha.2012.11.002

Keywords

Peptides; Fused-core (core-shell, core-enhanced, poro-shell, HALO (R)) stationary phases; RP-HPLC peptide retention model; In-silico amino acid descriptor

Funding

  1. Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT-Vlaanderen) [091241, 073402]
  2. Ghent University [BOF 01J22510, BOF 01D38811]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Different fused-core stationary phase chemistries (C18, Amide, Phenyl-hexyl and Peptide ES-C18) were used for the analysis of 21 structurally representative model peptides. In addition, the effects of the mobile phase composition (ACN or MeOH as organic modifier; formic acid or acetic acid, as acidifying component) on the column selectivity, peak shape and overall chromatographic performance were evaluated. The RP-amide column, combined with a formic acid acetonitrile based gradient system, performed as best. A peptide reversed-phase retention model is proposed, consisting of 5 variables: log SumAA, log Sv, clog P, log nHDon and log nHAcc. Quantitative structure-retention relationship (QSRR) models were constructed for 16 different chromatographic systems. The accuracy of this peptide retention model was demonstrated by the comparison between predicted and experimentally obtained retention times, explaining on average 86 A of the variability. Moreover, using an external set of 5 validation peptides, the predictive power of the model was also demonstrated. This peptide retention model includes the novel in-silico calculated amino acid descriptor, AA, which was calculated from log P, 3D-MoRSE, RDF and WHIM descriptors. (C) 2013 Xi'an Jiaotong University. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available