Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33675288›Full record

ReviewCytoskeleton (Hoboken, N.J.)2021

The many modes of flagellar and ciliary beating: Insights from a physical analysis.

Charles B Lindemann, Kathleen A Lesich

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cytoskeleton (Hoboken, N.J.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
4.3field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. CryoEM structure of thebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Basal bodies bend in response to ciliary forces.Molecular biology of the cell · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles B LindemannDepartment of Biological Sciences, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA.
Kathleen A LesichDepartment of Biological Sciences, Oakland University, Rochester, Michigan, USA.
Oakland University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The mechanism that allows the axoneme of eukaryotic cilia and flagella to produce both helical and planar beating is an enduring puzzle. The nine outer doublets of eukaryotic cilia and flagella are arranged in a circle. Therefore, each doublet pair with its associated dynein motors, should produce torque to bend the flagellum in a different direction. Sequential activation of each doublet pair should, therefore result in a helical bending wave. In reality, most cilia and flagella have a well-defined bending plane and many exhibit an almost perfectly flat (planar) beating pattern. In this analysis we examine the physics that governs flagellar bending, and arrive at two distinct possibilities that could explain the mechanism of planar beating. Of these, the mechanism with the best observational support is that the flagellum behaves as two ribbons of doublets interacting with a central partition. We also examine the physics of torsion in flagella and conclude that torsion could play a role in transitioning from a planar to a helical beating modality in long flagella. Lastly, we suggest some tests that would provide theoretical and/or experimental evaluation of our proposals.

Indexed as

AxonemeFlagellaCiliaCytoskeletonDyneinsDyneinsaxonemecentral pairdoubletsdyneinsperm

Identifiers

PMID33675288
PMCPMC8048621
OpenAlexW3134259218

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.