ReviewMicrobial cell (Graz, Austria)2020
Microfluidic techniques for separation of bacterial cells via taxis.
Review in Microbial cell (Graz, Austria), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selective Trapping of Bacteria in Porous Media by Cell Length.Integrative and comparative biology · 2026Article
- An Overview of Microfluidic Phenotype Separation of Bacteria.Current pharmaceutical design · 2026Review
- Hyphae of the fungus Aspergillus nidulans demonstrate chemotropism to nutrients and pH.PLoS biology · 2024Article
- Light Control in Microbial Systems.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Microfluidics for adaptation of microorganisms to stress: design and application.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Review
- Article
- Microbial stir bars: Light-activated rotation of tethered bacterial cells to enhance mixing in stagnant fluids.Biomicrofluidics · 2023Article
- Biosurfactants and chemotaxis interplay in microbial consortium-based hydrocarbons degradation.Environmental science and pollution research international · 2022Review
- Separation and enrichment of sodium-motile bacteria using cost-effective microfluidics.Biomicrofluidics · 2021Article
- Effect of inoculum size and antibiotics on bacterial traveling bands in a thin microchannel defined by optical adhesive.Microsystems & nanoengineering · 2021Article
- Controlled Complexity: Optimized Systems to Study the Role of the Gut Microbiome in Host Physiology.Frontiers in microbiology · 2021Review
- Review
- Ancestral Sequence Reconstructions of MotB Are Proton-Motile and Require MotA for Motility.Frontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The microbial environment is typically within a fluid and the key processes happen at the microscopic scale where viscosity dominates over inertial forces. Microfluidic tools are thus well suited to study microbial motility because they offer precise control of spatial structures and are ideal for the generation of laminar fluid flows with low Reynolds numbers at microbial lengthscales. These tools have been used in combination with microscopy platforms to visualise and study various microbial taxes. These include establishing concentration and temperature gradients to influence motility via chemotaxis and thermotaxis, or controlling the surrounding microenvironment to influence rheotaxis, magnetotaxis, and phototaxis. Improvements in microfluidic technology have allowed fine separation of cells based on subtle differences in motility traits and have applications in synthetic biology, directed evolution, and applied medical microbiology.
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.