Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25032699›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Magneto-chemotaxis in sediment: first insights.

Xuegang Mao, Ramon Egli, Nikolai Petersen, Marianne Hanzlik, Xiuming Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Primordial magnetotaxis in putative giant paleoproterozoic magnetofossils.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Reply to Wang and Chen: An ancient origin of magnetotactic bacteria.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Xuegang MaoCollege of Geographical Sciences, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China; Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Ramon EgliCentral institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics, Vienna, Austria.
Nikolai PetersenDepartment of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Ludwig-Maximilians University, Munich, Germany.
Marianne HanzlikChemistry Department, Munich Technical University, Munich, Germany.
Xiuming LiuCollege of Geographical Sciences, Fujian Normal University, Fuzhou, China; Department of Environment and Geography, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Magnetotactic bacteria (MTB) use passive alignment with the Earth magnetic field as a mean to increase their navigation efficiency in horizontally stratified environments through what is known as magneto-aerotaxis (M-A). Current M-A models have been derived from MTB observations in aqueous environments, where a >80% alignment with inclined magnetic field lines produces a one-dimensional search for optimal living conditions. However, the mean magnetic alignment of MTB in their most widespread living environment, i.e. sediment, has been recently found to be <1%, greatly reducing or even eliminating the magnetotactic advantage deduced for the case of MTB in water. In order to understand the role of magnetotaxis for MTB populations living in sediment, we performed first M-A observations with lake sediment microcosms. Microcosm experiments were based on different combinations of (1) MTB position with respect to their preferred living depth (i.e. above, at, and below), and (2) magnetic field configurations (i.e. correctly and incorrectly polarized vertical fields, horizontal fields, and zero fields). Results suggest that polar magnetotaxis is more complex than implied by previous experiments, and revealed unexpected differences between two types of MTB living in the same sediment. Our main findings are: (1) all investigated MTB benefit of a clear magnetotactic advantage when they need to migrate over macroscopic distances for reaching their optimal living depth, (2) magnetotaxis is not used by all MTB under stationary, undisturbed conditions, (3) some MTB can rely only on chemotaxis for macroscopic vertical displacements in sediment while other cannot, and (4) some MTB use a fixed polar M-A mechanisms, while other can switch their M-A polarity, performing what can be considered as a mixed polar-axial M-A. These observations demonstrate that sedimentary M-A is controlled by complex mechanical, chemical, and temporal factors that are poorly reproduced in aqueous environments.

Indexed as

ChemotaxisGeologic SedimentsMagnetic FieldsMagneticsMagnetospirillum

Identifiers

PMID25032699
PMCPMC4102565

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.