Cargando…
Chemometric Strategies for Fully Automated Interpretive Method Development in Liquid Chromatography
[Image: see text] The majority of liquid chromatography (LC) methods are still developed in a conventional manner, that is, by analysts who rely on their knowledge and experience to make method development decisions. In this work, a novel, open-source algorithm was developed for automated and interp...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
American Chemical Society
2022
|
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9685588/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36318471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.2c03160 |
_version_ | 1784835540405714944 |
---|---|
author | Bos, Tijmen S. Boelrijk, Jim Molenaar, Stef R. A. van ’t Veer, Brian Niezen, Leon E. van Herwerden, Denice Samanipour, Saer Stoll, Dwight R. Forré, Patrick Ensing, Bernd Somsen, Govert W. Pirok, Bob W. J. |
author_facet | Bos, Tijmen S. Boelrijk, Jim Molenaar, Stef R. A. van ’t Veer, Brian Niezen, Leon E. van Herwerden, Denice Samanipour, Saer Stoll, Dwight R. Forré, Patrick Ensing, Bernd Somsen, Govert W. Pirok, Bob W. J. |
author_sort | Bos, Tijmen S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | [Image: see text] The majority of liquid chromatography (LC) methods are still developed in a conventional manner, that is, by analysts who rely on their knowledge and experience to make method development decisions. In this work, a novel, open-source algorithm was developed for automated and interpretive method development of LC(−mass spectrometry) separations (“AutoLC”). A closed-loop workflow was constructed that interacted directly with the LC system and ran unsupervised in an automated fashion. To achieve this, several challenges related to peak tracking, retention modeling, the automated design of candidate gradient profiles, and the simulation of chromatograms were investigated. The algorithm was tested using two newly designed method development strategies. The first utilized retention modeling, whereas the second used a Bayesian-optimization machine learning approach. In both cases, the algorithm could arrive within 4–10 iterations (i.e., sets of method parameters) at an optimum of the objective function, which included resolution and analysis time as measures of performance. Retention modeling was found to be more efficient while depending on peak tracking, whereas Bayesian optimization was more flexible but limited in scalability. We have deliberately designed the algorithm to be modular to facilitate compatibility with previous and future work (e.g., previously published data handling algorithms). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9685588 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | American Chemical Society |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-96855882022-11-25 Chemometric Strategies for Fully Automated Interpretive Method Development in Liquid Chromatography Bos, Tijmen S. Boelrijk, Jim Molenaar, Stef R. A. van ’t Veer, Brian Niezen, Leon E. van Herwerden, Denice Samanipour, Saer Stoll, Dwight R. Forré, Patrick Ensing, Bernd Somsen, Govert W. Pirok, Bob W. J. Anal Chem [Image: see text] The majority of liquid chromatography (LC) methods are still developed in a conventional manner, that is, by analysts who rely on their knowledge and experience to make method development decisions. In this work, a novel, open-source algorithm was developed for automated and interpretive method development of LC(−mass spectrometry) separations (“AutoLC”). A closed-loop workflow was constructed that interacted directly with the LC system and ran unsupervised in an automated fashion. To achieve this, several challenges related to peak tracking, retention modeling, the automated design of candidate gradient profiles, and the simulation of chromatograms were investigated. The algorithm was tested using two newly designed method development strategies. The first utilized retention modeling, whereas the second used a Bayesian-optimization machine learning approach. In both cases, the algorithm could arrive within 4–10 iterations (i.e., sets of method parameters) at an optimum of the objective function, which included resolution and analysis time as measures of performance. Retention modeling was found to be more efficient while depending on peak tracking, whereas Bayesian optimization was more flexible but limited in scalability. We have deliberately designed the algorithm to be modular to facilitate compatibility with previous and future work (e.g., previously published data handling algorithms). American Chemical Society 2022-11-01 2022-11-22 /pmc/articles/PMC9685588/ /pubmed/36318471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.2c03160 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Published by American Chemical Society https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Permits the broadest form of re-use including for commercial purposes, provided that author attribution and integrity are maintained (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Bos, Tijmen S. Boelrijk, Jim Molenaar, Stef R. A. van ’t Veer, Brian Niezen, Leon E. van Herwerden, Denice Samanipour, Saer Stoll, Dwight R. Forré, Patrick Ensing, Bernd Somsen, Govert W. Pirok, Bob W. J. Chemometric Strategies for Fully Automated Interpretive Method Development in Liquid Chromatography |
title | Chemometric
Strategies for Fully Automated Interpretive
Method Development in Liquid Chromatography |
title_full | Chemometric
Strategies for Fully Automated Interpretive
Method Development in Liquid Chromatography |
title_fullStr | Chemometric
Strategies for Fully Automated Interpretive
Method Development in Liquid Chromatography |
title_full_unstemmed | Chemometric
Strategies for Fully Automated Interpretive
Method Development in Liquid Chromatography |
title_short | Chemometric
Strategies for Fully Automated Interpretive
Method Development in Liquid Chromatography |
title_sort | chemometric
strategies for fully automated interpretive
method development in liquid chromatography |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9685588/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36318471 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.analchem.2c03160 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bostijmens chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography AT boelrijkjim chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography AT molenaarstefra chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography AT vantveerbrian chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography AT niezenleone chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography AT vanherwerdendenice chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography AT samanipoursaer chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography AT stolldwightr chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography AT forrepatrick chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography AT ensingbernd chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography AT somsengovertw chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography AT pirokbobwj chemometricstrategiesforfullyautomatedinterpretivemethoddevelopmentinliquidchromatography |