ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
Chemotaxis in external fields: Simulations for active magnetic biological matter.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Directional matching of swimming polarity provides a competitive advantage during bacterial magneto-aerotaxis.BMC microbiology · 2026Article
- Physiological magnetic field strengths help magnetotactic bacteria navigate in simulated sediments.eLife · 2025Article
- Escape motility of multicellular magnetotactic prokaryotes.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024Article
- Computational fluid dynamics method for determining the rotational diffusion coefficient of cells.Physics of fluids (Woodbury, N.Y. : 1994) · 2024Article
- Article
- Stokesian dynamics simulations of a magnetotactic bacterium.The European physical journal. E, Soft matter · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The movement of microswimmers is often described by active Brownian particle models. Here we introduce a variant of these models with several internal states of the swimmer to describe stochastic strategies for directional swimming such as run and tumble or run and reverse that are used by microorganisms for chemotaxis. The model includes a mechanism to generate a directional bias for chemotaxis and interactions with external fields (e.g., gravity, magnetic field, fluid flow) that impose forces or torques on the swimmer. We show how this modified model can be applied to various scenarios: First, the run and tumble motion of E. coli is used to establish a paradigm for chemotaxis and investigate how it is affected by external forces. Then, we study magneto-aerotaxis in magnetotactic bacteria, which is biased not only by an oxygen gradient towards a preferred concentration, but also by magnetic fields, which exert a torque on an intracellular chain of magnets. We study the competition of magnetic alignment with active reorientation and show that the magnetic orientation can improve chemotaxis and thereby provide an advantage to the bacteria, even at rather large inclination angles of the magnetic field relative to the oxygen gradient, a case reminiscent of what is expected for the bacteria at or close to the equator. The highest gain in chemotactic velocity is obtained for run and tumble with a magnetic field parallel to the gradient, but in general a mechanism for reverse motion is necessary to swim against the magnetic field and a run and reverse strategy is more advantageous in the presence of a magnetic torque. This finding is consistent with observations that the dominant mode of directional changes in magnetotactic bacteria is reversal rather than tumbles. Moreover, it provides guidance for the design of future magnetic biohybrid swimmers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.