Chromatographic and computational assessment of lipophilicity using sum of ranking differences and generalized pair-correlation

Journal of Chromatography A

Volumn 1380, Issue , 2015, Pages 130-138

  Andrić, Filip ^a   Héberger, Károly ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BELGRADE   (Serbia)

^b INSTITUTE OF EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE   (Hungary)

Author keywords

Generalized pair correlation method; High performance liquid chromatography; Lipophilicity; Multivariate data analysis; Sum of ranking differences

Indexed keywords

CHROMATOGRAPHIC ANALYSIS; COMPUTATIONAL METHODS; CORRELATION METHODS; HIERARCHICAL CLUSTERING; HIERARCHICAL SYSTEMS; HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; INFORMATION ANALYSIS; PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES;

CHROMATOGRAPHIC METHODS; COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH; LIPOPHILICITY; MULTIVARIATE DATA ANALYSIS; PAIR CORRELATIONS; PAIR-CORRELATION METHOD; PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS; SUM OF RANKING DIFFERENCES;

MULTIVARIANT ANALYSIS;

ARTICLE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; GENERALIZED PAIR CORRELATION; HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; LIPOPHILICITY; MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; REVERSED PHASE HIGH PERFORMANCE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY; SUM OF RANKING DIFFERENCES; VALIDATION STUDY; CHEMICAL PHENOMENA; NONPARAMETRIC TEST; REVERSED PHASE LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY;

CHROMATOGRAPHY, HIGH PRESSURE LIQUID; CHROMATOGRAPHY, REVERSE-PHASE; CLUSTER ANALYSIS; HYDROPHOBIC AND HYDROPHILIC INTERACTIONS; PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS; STATISTICS, NONPARAMETRIC;

EID: 84921306440     PISSN: 00219673     EISSN: 18733778     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.chroma.2014.12.073     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Meyer H. Zur Theorie der Alkoholnarkose I. Welche Eigenschaft der Anästhetika bedingt ihre narkotische Wirkung?. Arch. Pharmakol. Exp. Pathol. 1899, 42:109-118.
2. E. Overton, Studien über die Narkose, zugleich ein Beitrag zur allgemeinen Pharmakologie, (1901) Jena, Switzerland: Gustav Fischer.
3. Tesic Zivoslav Lj., Milojkovic-Opsenica Dusanka M. TLC determination of drug lipophilicity. Thin Layer Chromatography in Drug Analysis 2013, CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Edt. Lukasz Komsta, Monika Vaksmundzka-Hajnos, Joseph Sherma.
4. IUPAC, Compendium of Chemical Terminology, second ed. (the Gold Book), Compiled by A. D. McNaught and A. Wilkinson, (1997) Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford. XML on-line corrected version: http://goldbook.iupac.org (2006) created by M. Nic, J., Jirat, B. Kosata; updates compiled by A. Jenkins.
5. Murakami F. Retention behavior of benzene derivatives on bonded reversed-phase columns. J. Chromatogr. 1979, 178:393-399.
6. Bieganowska M.L., Doraczynska-Szopa A., Petruczynik A. The retention behavior of some sulfonamides on different TLC plates. 2. Comparison of the selectivity of the systems and quantitative determination of hydrophobicity parameters. J. Planar Chromatogr.-Mod. TLC 1995, 8:122-128.
7. Sarbu C., Sorina T. Determination of lipophilicity of some non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents and their relationships by using principal component analysis based on thin-layer chromatographic retention data. J. Chromatogr. A 1998, 822:263-269.
8. Sarbu C., Kuhajda K., Kevresan S. Evaluation of the lipophilicity of bile acids and their derivatives by thin-layer chromatography and principal component analysis. J. Chromatogr. A 2001, 917:361-366.
9. OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals, Test No. 107, Partition coefficient (n-octanol/water), Shake flask method (1995) OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org.
10. OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals, Test No. 117, Partition coefficient (n-octanol/water), HPLC method (2004) OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org.
11. OECD Guideline for the testing of chemicals, Test No. 117, Partition coefficient (n-octanol/water), Slow-stirring method (2005) OECD, Paris, www.oecd.org.
12. Sarbu C., Casoni D., Kot-Wasik A., Wasik A., Namiesnik J. Modeling of chromatographic lipophilicity of food synthetic dyes estimated on different columns. J. Sep. Sci. 2010, 33(15):2219-2229.
13. Briciu R.D., Kot-Wasik A., Wasik A., Namiesnik J., Sarbu C. The lipophilicity of artificial and natural sweeteners estimated by reversed-phase thin-layer chromatography and computed by various methods. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217(23):3702-3706.
14. Hemstrom P., Irgum K. Hydrophilic interaction chromatography. J. Sep. Sci. 2006, 29:1784-1821.
15. Aleksic M., Odovic J., Milojkovic-Opsenica D.M., Tesic Z.Lj. Salting-out chromatography of several myorelaxants. J. Planar Chromatogr. Mod. TLC 2003, 16:144-146.
16. Sarbu C., Nascu-Briciu R.D., Casoni D., Kot-Wasik A., Wasik A., Namiesnik J. Chromatographic lipophilicity determination using large volume injections of the solvents non-miscible with the mobile phase. J. Chromatogr. A 2012, 1266:53-60.
17. Casoni D., Sarbu C. Comprehensive evaluation of lipophilicity of biogenic amines and related compounds using different chemically bonded phases and various descriptors. J. Sep. Sci. 2012, 35(8):915-921.
18. Heberger K. Quantitative structure-(chromatographic) retention relationships. J. Chromatogr. A 2007, 1158:273-305.
19. David V., Medvedovici A. Structure-retention correlation in liquid chromatography for pharmaceutical applications. J. Liq. Chromatogr. Relat. Technol. 2007, 30:761-789.
20. Grover M., Singh B., Bakshi M., Singh S. Quantitative structure-property relationships in pharmaceutical research-Part 1. Pharm. Sci. Technol. Today 2000, 3:28-35.
21. Grover M., Singh B., Bakshi M., Singh S. Quantitative structure-property relationships in pharmaceutical research-Part 2. Pharm. Sci. Technol. Today 2000, 3:50-57.
22. Tachea F., Nascu-Briciu R.D., Sarbu C., Micale F., Medvedovici A. Estimation of the lipophilic character of flavonoids from the retention behavior in reversed phase liquid chromatography on different stationary phases: A comparative study. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 2012, 57:82-93.
23. Voicu V., Sarbu C., Tache F., Micale F., Radulescu S.F., Sakurada K., Ohta H., Medvedovici A. Lipophilicity indices derived from the liquid chromatographic behavior observed under bimodal retention conditions (reversed phase/hydrophilic interaction, Application to a representative set of pyridinium oximes. Talanta 2014, 122:172-179.
24. Pyka A., Babuska M., Zachariasz M. A comparison of theoretical methods of calculation of partition coefficients for selected drugs. Acta Pol. Pharm. 2006, 63(3):159-167.
25. Estrada-Tejedor R., Sabate N., Broto F., Nonell S., De Sarria I.Q., Llull U.R., Augusta V. Octanol-water partition coefficients of highly hydrophobic photodynamic therapy drugs: a computational study. AFINIDAD LXX 2013, 564:250-256.
26. Mannhold R., Poda G.I., Ostermann C., Tetko I.V. Calculation of molecular lipophilicity: State-of-the-art and comparison of Log P methods on more than 96,000 compounds. J. Pharm. Sci. 2009, 98(3):861-893.
27. Casoni D., Kot-Wasik A., Namie J., Sarbu C. Lipophilicity data for some preservatives estimated by reversed-phase liquid chromatography and different computation methods. J. Chromatogr. A 2009, 1216:2456-2465.
28. 0 as descriptors of the hydrophobicity of some fungicides. JPC-J. Planar Chromatogr. - Modern TLC 2006, 19(111):361-370.
29. Heberger K. Sum of ranking differences compares methods or models fairly. TrAC Trends Analyt. Chem. 2010, 29(1):101-109.
30. Vracko M., Minovski N., Heberger K. Ranking of QSAR models to predict minimal inhibitory concentrations toward mycobacterium tuberculosis for a set of fluoroquinolones. Acta Chim. Sloven. 2010, 57:586-590.
31. Heberger K., Zenkevich I.G. Comparison of physicochemical and gas chromatographic polarity measures for simple organic compounds. J. Chromatogr. A 2010, 1217:2895-2902.
32. Sipos L., Kovacs Z., Szollosi D., Kokai Z., Dalmadi I., Fekete A. Comparison of novel sensory panel performance evaluation techniques with e-nose analysis integration. J. Chemom. 2011, 25:275-286.
33. Sunjog K., Kolarevic S., Heberger K., Gacic Z., Knezevic-Vukcevic J., Vukovic-Gacic B., Lenhardt M. Comparison of comet assay parameters for estimation of genotoxicity by sum of ranking differences. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2013, 405(14):4879-4885.
34. Heberger K., Kollar-Hunek K. Sum of ranking differences for method discrimination and its validation: comparison of ranks with random numbers. J. Chemom. 2011, 25(4):151-158.
35. Kollar-Hunek K., Heberger K. Method and model comparison by sum of ranking differences in cases of repeated observations (ties). Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2013, 127:139-146.
36. Heberger K., Rajko R. Generalization of pair correlation method (PCM) for non-parametric variable selection. J. Chemom. 2002, 16(8-10):436-443.
37. Rajko R., Heberger K. Conditional Fisher's exact test as a selection criterion for pair-correlation method. Type I and Type II errors. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst. 2001, 57(1):1-14.