Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25926819›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in microbiology2015

The cognitive cell: bacterial behavior reconsidered.

Pamela Lyon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in microbiology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 103 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
103citing 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

103 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Continual decision-making dynamics across biological organisms.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Three frameworks for AI mentality.Frontiers in psychology · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. A minimal genetic circuit for cellular anticipation.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The Multiscale Wisdom of the Body: Collective Intelligence as a Tractable Interface for Next-Generation Biomedicine.BioEssays : news and reviews in molecular, cellular and developmental biology · 2025
    Review
  18. The 2025 motile active matter roadmap.Journal of physics. Condensed matter : an Institute of Physics journal · 2025
    Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

43 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

1 author.

Pamela LyonSouthgate Institute for Health, Society and Equity, School of Medicine, Flinders University Adelaide, SA, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Research on how bacteria adapt to changing environments underlies the contemporary biological understanding of signal transduction (ST), and ST provides the foundation of the information-processing approach that is the hallmark of the 'cognitive revolution,' which began in the mid-20th century. Yet cognitive scientists largely remain oblivious to research into microbial behavior that might provide insights into problems in their own domains, while microbiologists seem equally unaware of the potential importance of their work to understanding cognitive capacities in multicellular organisms, including vertebrates. Evidence in bacteria for capacities encompassed by the concept of cognition is reviewed. Parallels exist not only at the heuristic level of functional analogue, but also at the level of molecular mechanism, evolution and ecology, which is where fruitful cross-fertilization among disciplines might be found.

Indexed as

cognitioncommunicationevolutioninformation-processinglearningmemorysignal transductionvalence

Identifiers

PMID25926819
PMCPMC4396460

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.