Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39967857›Full record

ReviewCommunicative & integrative biology2025

The need for a new perspective on decision-making in bacteria.

Sibin Mathew Nesin, Mathew Chandrankunnel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Communicative & integrative biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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.

Sibin Mathew NesinDepartment of Psychology, School of Psychological Sciences, CHRIST University, Bangalore, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2216-6266
Mathew ChandrankunnelDharmaram Vidya Kshetram, Bangalore, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0000-6165-4831

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The individualistic and collectivistic intelligent behaviors observed in mammals, birds, and fishes have been appreciated by many scientists in recent years and supported by the Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in 2012. Behavioral studies in lower organisms like arthropods and cephalopods showed the presence of multisensory integration, decision-making, and goal-directed behavior in these non-vertebrate animals. The presence of intelligent and history-dependent behaviors has been studied in microorganisms, and recent studies propose the possibility of cognition in single cellular organisms. The Cellular Basis of Consciousness (CBC), proposed by Arthur Reber in 2016 and elaborated by Baluška and Reber in 2019, suggests the possibility of consciousness in single cellular organisms. However, the critics of the Cellular Basis of Consciousness theory state that the individual bacterial cell does not make choices, and the decision-making is the result of stochastic differences in protein levels. Here, we want to address the criticism of decision-making in bacteria. An attempt is made to give a new perspective to the existing model to explain the flexibility in bacterial behavior in an ever-changing environment. The authors would like to consider an alternative perspective on flexibility in decision-making as the result of multiple pathways that have convergence and divergence as observed in the brain. Flexibility provides the possibility to have individualistic behavior, and the existence of such pathways can be considered as the molecular mechanism underlying individualistic decision-making in bacteria as well as in humans.

Indexed as

Bacterial consciousnessbacterial decision- makingcognitive flexibilityconsciousnessindividual behaviormicrobial cognitionmicrobial intelligencethe cellular basis of consciousness (CBC)

Identifiers

PMID39967857
PMCPMC11834444

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.