Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41857961›Full record

ArticlePhysical review. E2026

Algal optics.

Ming Yang, Sumit Kumar Birwa, Raymond E Goldstein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physical review. E, 2026. 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. Article
  2. Algal optics.Physical review. E · 2026
    Article
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

3 authors.

Ming YangDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom.
Sumit Kumar BirwaDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom.
Raymond E GoldsteinDepartment of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, University of Cambridge, Wilberforce Road, Cambridge CB3 0WA, United Kingdom.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nearly a decade ago, it was discovered that the spherical cell body of the alga Chlamydomonas reinhardtii can act as a lens to concentrate incoming light onto the cell's membrane-bound photoreceptor and thereby affect phototaxis. Since many nearly transparent cells in marine environments have complex, often nonaxisymmetric shapes, this observation raises fundamental, yet little-explored questions in biological optics about light refraction by the bodies of microorganisms. There are two distinct contexts for such questions: the absorption problem for incoming light, typified by photosynthetic activity taking place in the chloroplasts of green algae, and the emission problem for outgoing light, where the paradigm is bioluminescence emitted from scintillons within dinoflagellates. Here we examine both of these aspects of "algal optics" in the special case where the absorption or emission is localized in structures that are small relative to the overall organism size, taking into account both refraction and reflections at the cell-water boundary. Analytical and numerical results are developed for the distribution of light intensities inside and outside the body, and we establish certain duality relationships that connect the incoming and outgoing problems. For strongly nonspherical shapes, we find lensing effects that may have implications for photosynthetic activity and for the angular distribution of light emitted during bioluminescent flashes.

Indexed as

Chlamydomonas reinhardtiiModels, BiologicalOptical PhenomenaLightPhotosynthesis

Identifiers

PMID41857961
PMCPMC7619488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.