1 Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montréal, QC, H4B 1R6, Canada.
2 PERFORM Centre, Concordia University, 7200 Sherbrooke Street West, Montréal, QC, H4B 1R6, Canada.
3 Metabolomics Core Facility, Goodman Cancer Research Centre, McGill University, Montréal, QC, H3A 1A3, Canada.
4 Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke Street West, Montréal, QC, H4B 1R6, Canada. dajana.vuckovic@concordia.ca.
5 PERFORM Centre, Concordia University, 7200 Sherbrooke Street West, Montréal, QC, H4B 1R6, Canada. dajana.vuckovic@concordia.ca.

The ratio between reduced and oxidized thiols, mainly glutathione and oxidized glutathione, is one of the biomarkers for the evaluation of oxidative stress. The accurate measurement of thiol concentrations is challenging because reduced thiols are easily oxidized during sample manipulation. Derivatization is commonly used to protect thiols from oxidation. The objective of this work was to systematically compare two cell-permeable derivatizing agents: N-ethyl maleimide (NEM) and (R)-(+)-N-(1-phenylethyl)maleimide (NPEM) in terms of derivatization efficiency, ionization enhancement, side product formation, reaction selectivity for thiols, pH dependence of the reaction, and derivative stability. All thiol measurements and the characterization of side products were performed using a biphenyl reversed phase liquid chromatography-high-resolution mass spectrometry (LC-HRMS). Four thiols, cysteine (CYS), homocysteine, N-acetylcysteine (NAC), and glutathione (GSH), were used for the evaluation. Using 1:10 ratio of thiol:derivatizing agent, complete derivatization was obtained within 30 min for both agents tested with the exception of CYS-NEM, where 97% efficiency was obtained. The more hydrophobic NPEM provided better ionization of the thiols, with enhancement ranging from 2.1x for GSH to 5.7x for CYS in comparison to NEM. NPEM derivatization led to more extensive side reactions, such as double derivatization and ring opening, which hindered the accurate measurement of the thiol concentrations. Both NEM and NPEM also showed poor stability of CYS derivative due to its time-dependent conversion to cyclic cysteine-maleimide derivative. Both reagents also showed significant reactivity with amine-containing metabolites depending on the pH used during derivatization, but overall NEM was found to be more selective towards thiol group than NPEM. Taking into account all evaluation criteria, NEM was selected as a more suitable reagent for the thiol protection and derivatization, but strict control of pH 7.0 is recommended to minimize the side reactions. This work illustrates the importance of the characterization of side products and derivative stability during the evaluation of thiol derivatizing agents and contributes fundamental understanding to improve the accuracy of thiol determinations. The key sources of errors during maleimide derivatization include the derivatization of amine-containing metabolites, poor derivative stability of certain thiols (CYS and NAC), and the side reactions especially if ring opening of the reagent is not minimized. Graphical abstract.