Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Benchmarking of Computational Methods for Creation of Retention Models in Quantitative Structure-Retention Relationships Studies.
Amos, Ruth I J; Tyteca, Eva; Talebi, Mohammad; Haddad, Paul R; Szucs, Roman; Dolan, John W; Pohl, Christopher A.
Afiliação
  • Amos RIJ; Australian Centre for Research on Separation Science (ACROSS), School of Physical Sciences-Chemistry, University of Tasmania , Private Bag 75, Hobart 7001, Australia.
  • Tyteca E; Australian Centre for Research on Separation Science (ACROSS), School of Physical Sciences-Chemistry, University of Tasmania , Private Bag 75, Hobart 7001, Australia.
  • Talebi M; Analytical Chemistry, AgroBioChem Department, Gembloux Agro-Biotech, University of Liège , 2 Passage des Deportes, Gembloux 5030, Belgium.
  • Haddad PR; Australian Centre for Research on Separation Science (ACROSS), School of Physical Sciences-Chemistry, University of Tasmania , Private Bag 75, Hobart 7001, Australia.
  • Szucs R; Australian Centre for Research on Separation Science (ACROSS), School of Physical Sciences-Chemistry, University of Tasmania , Private Bag 75, Hobart 7001, Australia.
  • Dolan JW; Pfizer Global Research and Development , Ramsgate Road, Sandwich CT13 9ND, U.K.
  • Pohl CA; LC Resources , 1795 NW Wallace Road, McMinnville, Oregon 97128, United States.
J Chem Inf Model ; 57(11): 2754-2762, 2017 11 27.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-29028323
ABSTRACT
Quantitative structure-retention relationship (QSRR) models are powerful techniques for the prediction of retention times of analytes, where chromatographic retention parameters are correlated with molecular descriptors encoding chemical structures of analytes. Many QSRR models contain geometrical descriptors derived from the three-dimensional (3D) spatial coordinates of computationally predicted structures for the analytes. Therefore, it is sensible to calculate these structures correctly, as any error is likely to carry over to the resulting QSRR models. This study compares molecular modeling, semiempirical, and density functional methods (both B3LYP and M06) for structure optimization. Each of the calculations was performed in a vacuum, then repeated with solvent corrections for both acetonitrile and water. We also compared Natural Bond Orbital analysis with the Mulliken charge calculation method. The comparison of the examined computational methods for structure calculation shows that, possibly due to the error inherent in descriptor creation methods, a quick and inexpensive molecular modeling method of structure determination gives similar results to experiments where structures are optimized using an expensive and time-consuming level of computational theory. Also, for structures with low flexibility, vacuum or gas phase calculations are found to be as effective as those calculations with solvent corrections added.
Assuntos

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Modelos Moleculares / Relação Quantitativa Estrutura-Atividade Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Modelos Moleculares / Relação Quantitativa Estrutura-Atividade Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2017 Tipo de documento: Article