Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 7 minor 46 references

Measuring DNA Microswimmer Locomotion in Complex Flow Environments

T0 review · 4 major / 7 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Tracer microspheres isolate the field-driven swimming response of DNA-linked microswimmers suspended in complex fluid flows.

desk verdict A clever differential fiducial scheme for measuring microswimmer swimming in flow, but the central claim needs a non-swimming control and more validation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15152 v1 pith:SUX4WD35 submitted 2024-12-19 cs.RO

Taryn Imamura , Teresa A. Kent , Rebecca E. Taylor , Sarah Bergbreiter This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.RO
keywords microswimmersfiducialtrackingcomplexflowmagneticactuationDNAnanotubelinkagecolloidalassemblylowReynoldsnumberlocomotionmotionisolation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper presents a method for measuring how tiny magnetically actuated "microswimmers" move when they are suspended in a fluid that is itself flowing, rather than in a sealed, quiescent test chamber. The method tracks two kinds of inert microspheres alongside the swimmers: non-magnetic spheres, which move with the fluid, and magnetic spheres, which also feel magnetic field gradients. By subtracting the motion of these tracer particles from the microswimmer's trajectory, the authors isolate the part of the motion that comes from the swimmer's own actuation. They show that multiple DNA-linked colloidal microswimmers reliably translate only when driven by an oscillating magnetic field, even as the background flow and field gradients vary across the dish. This is, to their knowledge, the first experimental quantification of suspended colloidal microswimmer locomotion in a complex flow environment.

What carries the argument

The key object is the fiducial microsphere pair: non-magnetic and ferromagnetic polystyrene microspheres of the same size, density, and surface coating as the microswimmer's beads. They are tracked in the same field of view and used as a subtractive reference: the median translation of non-magnetic fiducials estimates fluid flow, the magnetic-fiducial translation adds the magnetic-gradient contribution, and the difference between microswimmer and magnetic-fiducial motion isolates the field-driven gait. The method also introduces an exclusion zone around each microswimmer, within which fiducials are disturbed by the swimmer's own local flow and are omitted from the flow estimate.

What would settle it

Place a rigidly linked dumbbell (two spheres with no flexible DNA linkage, one ferromagnetic, one not) in the same test chamber and apply the oscillating magnetic field. If the subtraction scheme reports a nonzero 'swimming' displacement for this non-swimming control, the fiducial proxy is contaminated; a null result would support the method. Alternatively, measure the flow field directly with micro-PIV in the same dish and compare the non-magnetic fiducial median velocity to the true local fluid velocity; any systematic offset would indicate bias in the flow estimate.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the locomotion of a suspended colloidal microswimmer can be separated from environmental motion by using two types of fiducial microspheres: non-magnetic polystyrene spheres that track fluid flow, and ferromagnetic spheres that additionally track magnetic field gradients. Because the microswimmer is itself a dumbbell of one ferromagnetic and one non-magnetic sphere linked by DNA, the authors assume that the single-sphere fiducials experience the same flow and gradient forces as the microswimmer's components. Subtracting the median displacement of non-magnetic fiducials removes flow drift; subtracting the magnetic-fiducial displacement from the swimmer's displacement then removes the gradient force and any residual flow. The residual signal, which appears only when an oscillating magnetic field is applied, is the field-driven swimming motion, measured at roughly 0.02–0.05 body lengths per second. The paper demonstrates this isolation on multiple microswimmers in different regions of the test dish, each with different flow and gradient conditions.

Load-bearing premise

The method assumes that the motion of single spherical fiducial microspheres—both non-magnetic and magnetic—faithfully represents the forces acting on the microswimmer's two-sphere dumbbell, so that subtracting fiducial motion completely removes flow and magnetic-gradient effects from the swimmer's trajectory.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With this subtraction scheme, microswimmer speed and direction can be measured in real time in an arbitrarily flowing fluid, not just in idealized still chambers.
  • The same fiducial-based subtraction can be applied to any magnetically actuated colloidal swimmer whose components match the fiducial beads in size and density.
  • The measured reproducibility of swimming across different flow regions provides the basis for path planning of microswimmers in unstructured environments.
  • The method exposes the influence of manufacturing variability (linkage stiffness, magnetization direction) on swimming speed and direction, since it removes environmental contamination.
  • Future studies can use the isolated swimming signal to test structure–function hypotheses about DNA linkage stiffness and magnetization orientation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The method's reliance on single-sphere fiducials could be tested against a rigidly linked dumbbell control; if a non-flexible dumbbell still shows a residual signal after subtraction under an oscillating field, the proxy assumption fails.
  • The technique could generalize to optical or acoustic actuation by choosing fiducials that respond only to the background potential, provided a matching single-particle tracer exists.
  • A more rigorous validation would replace the 'approximately linear flow' assumption with a known, independently measured flow field, for instance using micro-PIV at the same magnification, to bound the error introduced by the subtraction.
  • Extending the method to 3D tracking would require fiducials that remain co-planar with the swimmer; otherwise out-of-plane flow components would contaminate the subtraction.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper presents a measurement methodology for isolating the self-propelled ('swimming') translation of DNA-linked colloidal microswimmers from motion caused by ambient fluid flow and magnetic field gradients. The method tracks three classes of particles: non-magnetic polystyrene fiducial microspheres, ferromagnetic fiducial microspheres, and microswimmers composed of a ferromagnetic and a non-magnetic microsphere joined by DNA nanotubes. Fluid flow is estimated as the median translation of non-magnetic fiducials; magnetic-gradient-induced drift is estimated from the translation of magnetic fiducials; the field-driven microswimmer response is then defined as the microswimmer translation minus the magnetic-fiducial translation. The authors apply the method to several trials with constant, rotating, and oscillating magnetic fields and report that only the oscillating field produces substantial relative translation, consistent with the Scallop Theorem. They claim this is the first experimental quantification of suspended colloidal microswimmer locomotion in the presence of complex flow.

Significance. If the proposed differential measurement is valid, it addresses a real and important need: extracting the ground-truth locomotion of soft, flexible microswimmers in uncontrolled fluid environments, which is currently a bottleneck for microswimmer navigation and control. The paper's core idea is logically coherent and the use of both non-magnetic and magnetic fiducials to separate flow from field-gradient effects is a sensible design. The inclusion of multiple trials, an exclusion zone for swimmer-induced flow, and quantitative RMSE measures are also strengths. However, the central claim rests on an unvalidated proxy assumption—that a single magnetic sphere faithfully represents the force-to-displacement response of a two-sphere flexible dumbbell—and the paper does not provide a non-swimming control or a systematic validation of the subtraction. Because this assumption is load-bearing for every quantitative result, the method is promising but not yet established.

major comments (4)
  1. [II-C and III-A] The subtraction that defines the swimming signal assumes that the magnetic fiducial sphere experiences the same external forces as the microswimmer and, crucially, that equal forces imply equal displacements. This is not established. The microswimmer is a flexible dumbbell consisting of a 10.3 µm ferromagnetic bead linked to a 6.8 µm non-magnetic bead, while the magnetic fiducial is a single sphere. Under a magnetic gradient force acting on the ferromagnetic bead, the translational mobility of the dumbbell differs from that of a single sphere, the dumbbell may rotate, and tracking only the ferromagnetic bead center adds a configurational contribution to the measured displacement. The authors should provide a control experiment with a non-swimming dumbbell (for example, a rigidly linked or non-magnetic dumbbell, or a microswimmer with the magnetic response disabled) and show that under the same fields the quantity Δswim − Δmag remains at zero within noise. Without such a control, the reported 40 µm relative translation could in part be a mobility artifact rather than swimming.
  2. [III-A] The validation of the subtraction uses the pre-oscillation match between microswimmer and magnetic-fiducial trajectories (RMSE 2.5 µm) in a single trial (Fig. 5e). This is not sufficient to establish that the subtraction is valid in trials with larger magnetic gradients, such as those in Fig. 8, where the magnetic fiducials move differently from the non-magnetic fiducials. The authors should report, for every trial, the RMSE of Δswim − Δmag during the non-oscillating phases and show that this residual is small compared with the swimming signal; ideally they should also test whether the residual correlates with the magnitude of Δmag − ΔPS, which would indicate an uncompensated gradient response.
  3. [III-B] The exclusion zone radius is a free parameter chosen 'by analyzing how the estimation error of ΔPS changed based on the distance between the non-magnetic fiducial and the microswimmer,' but the manuscript does not report the actual procedure, the chosen radius, or the sensitivity of the flow estimate to this radius. Since the flow estimate feeds directly into the differential measurement, the authors should state the selection criterion, provide a sensitivity analysis, or use a data-driven threshold with uncertainty bounds. Without this, neither the flow estimate nor the resulting swimming signal is uniquely determined by the data.
  4. [III-C] The claim that microswimmers are 'repeatably capable of locomoting' is not quantitatively supported. The paper states that 'three other microswimmer trials not shown here' also show an increase in Δswim − Δmag, but no aggregate statistics, per-trial velocities, or confidence intervals are given. For a methodology paper whose central claim is repeatable isolation of swimming, all trials should be summarized (for example, in a table with pre-oscillation residual, post-oscillation signal, and swimming speed), and the variability across trials should be discussed.
minor comments (7)
  1. [III-A] The section title 'Measuring the affect of Magnetic Field Input' should be 'Measuring the effect of Magnetic Field Input.'
  2. [II-D, Eq. (1)] The notation in Eq. (1) is slightly ambiguous: the sum runs from j=0 to s over 's time steps,' but the number of time samples and the index range should be stated consistently; also n and s should be defined in the text.
  3. [II-C] The tracking details are incomplete: the authors should specify the TEMA tracking parameters, the pixel-to-micrometer calibration, and how the center of the ferromagnetic bead is identified when the two beads are close to each other.
  4. [Fig. 5c] The R² value of 99.9% for a linear fit is reported without showing the fit or its residuals; adding the fit line and the fit parameters would make the claim easier to assess.
  5. [III-B] The RMSE values of 22.9 µm and 7.0 µm for fiducials inside and outside the exclusion zone are reported for one experiment; the authors should state whether this pattern was consistent across trials and how the exclusion zone was applied to the magnetic fiducials as well as the non-magnetic fiducials.
  6. [IV] The conclusion contains the typo 'testing the affect of parameters' and should be 'the effect of parameters.'
  7. [General] No data or code availability statement is provided; making the raw trajectories and analysis scripts available would substantially strengthen the reproducibility of this methodology paper.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Central swimming measurement is a differential control method with independent content; one local circular-validation issue in the exclusion-zone fit keeps the score at 4.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III-B, 'Local Flow Effect of Microswimmer Actuation', Fig. 6 and Eq. (1)]
    "In Fig. 6, the estimated translation (∆P S) of non-magnetic fiducials inside the exclusion zone was significantly less (α<0.01) accurate than the estimated translation of non-magnetic fiducials outside the exclusion zone (RMSE 22.9 µm vs 7.0 µm). This result justifies calculating ∆P S using only fiducials located outside the exclusion zone. The radius of the exclusion zone was chosen by analyzing how the estimation error of ∆P S changed based on the distance between the non-magnetic fiducial and the microswimmer (Fig. 6c,d)."

    The exclusion radius is selected by inspecting how the RMSE of ∆P S varies with distance in the same experimental dataset, and then the very same RMSE comparison (22.9 µm vs 7.0 µm) is reported as evidence that the exclusion improves the flow estimate. This is a parameter fit to the error metric used to validate it, so the apparent accuracy gain is forced by the selection procedure rather than being an independent, out-of-sample prediction. The effect on the headline swimming signal (∆swim − ∆mag) is indirect because that subtraction uses the magnetic fiducial rather than the non-magnetic flow estimate, but the paper presents the exclusion-zone filter as part of the validated measurement methodology.

full rationale

The paper's central quantity, the field-driven translation, is not derived from a fitted parameter: it is the measured difference ∆swim − ∆mag between two tracked objects, and the pre-oscillation segment provides an empirical (if imperfect) check on the control assumption. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: [40] and [41] supply theoretical expectations about flexibly-linked microswimmers, but the observed increase in ∆swim − ∆mag is an experimental result, not a logical consequence of those citations. The one genuinely circular element is the exclusion zone: its radius is chosen by inspecting the RMSE of the flow estimate on the same dataset, and then that same RMSE improvement (22.9 µm vs 7.0 µm) is reported as validation. This is a fitted parameter being used to certify the accuracy of the very estimator it was fit to, though it affects the supporting flow-estimation subroutine rather than the headline ∆swim − ∆mag subtraction. The control assumption that a single magnetic sphere responds identically to a two-bead dumbbell is a correctness risk (potential mobility artifact), not a circularity, and is not scored here.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement rests on several unverified domain assumptions, most importantly that single-sphere fiducials experience the same flow and magnetic gradient forces as the DNA-linked dumbbell microswimmer. The only explicit fitted parameter is the exclusion zone radius, chosen post hoc from the data.

free parameters (1)
  • exclusion_zone_radius = not reported
    Radius chosen post hoc by analyzing how the RMSE of the flow estimate varies with distance from the microswimmer (Section III-B), then applied to exclude nearby fiducials; this is a fit to the same data used to demonstrate improvement.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Flow within the 500 by 530 micrometer field of view is approximately uniform or linear.
    Stated in Section II-C; needed for the median fiducial translation to represent the flow experienced by the microswimmer.
  • domain assumption Fiducial microspheres experience the same fluid flow and magnetic gradient forces as the microswimmer because of similar size, density, and coatings.
    Stated in Section II-C; core to the subtraction scheme, but the microswimmer is a connected dumbbell, not a single sphere.
  • domain assumption Non-magnetic fiducials are unaffected by the applied magnetic field.
    Assumed in Section III-A; if they were affected, the flow estimate would be biased.
  • domain assumption Fluid flow between the SPT and 1xTAE layers is approximately laminar and thermal fluctuations are minimal after one hour of settling.
    Stated in Section II-C; used to justify treating observed fiducial motion as persistent flow rather than transient mixing or Brownian motion.
  • domain assumption Magnetic field gradients affecting the magnetic fiducial are the same as those affecting the microswimmer's ferromagnetic bead.
    Needed in Sections II-D and III-A for the subtraction of magnetic fiducial motion from microswimmer motion to isolate swimming.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Measuring DNA Microswimmer Locomotion in Complex Flow Environments." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SUX4WD35

@misc{pith2026241215152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Measuring DNA Microswimmer Locomotion in Complex Flow Environments},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SUX4WD35}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15152}
}
read the original abstract

Microswimmers are sub-millimeter swimming microrobots that show potential as a platform for controllable locomotion in applications including targeted cargo delivery and minimally invasive surgery. To be viable for these target applications, microswimmers will eventually need to be able to navigate in environments with dynamic fluid flows and forces. Experimental studies with microswimmers towards this goal are currently rare because of the difficulty isolating intentional microswimmer motion from environment-induced motion. In this work, we present a method for measuring microswimmer locomotion within a complex flow environment using fiducial microspheres. By tracking the particle motion of ferromagnetic and non-magnetic polystyrene fiducial microspheres, we capture the effect of fluid flow and field gradients on microswimmer trajectories. We then determine the field-driven translation of these microswimmers relative to fluid flow and demonstrate the effectiveness of this method by illustrating the motion of multiple microswimmers through different flows.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.15152 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Microscope image of non-magnetic fiducial microspheres, a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. a) Chamber and fluid contents used in microswimmer swimming [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. a) Orthogonal pairs of Helmholtz coils were used to generate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: a) The magnetic field orientation generated by the coils. b) Rotations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_5.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Different locations led to variations in the magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_8.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The difference ∆swim ´ ∆mag provides an estimate for the speed (a) and direction (b) of the microswimmer’s motion. b) The direction path of all three particle types, ∆P S (blue), ∆mag (red) and ∆swim (purple) are plotted as they are subjected to a magnetic field (c) ov…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The tests from Fig. 7 are repeated over two more trials in (a-b). [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Fluid Mechanics of Planktonic Microorganisms,

    J. S. Guasto, R. Rusconi, and R. Stocker, “Fluid Mechanics of Planktonic Microorganisms,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics , vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 373–400, Jan. 2012. [Online]. Available: https: //www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-fluid-120710-101156

    work page doi:10.1146/annurev-fluid-120710-101156 2012

  2. [2]

    Bacterial hydrodynamics

    E. Lauga, “Bacterial Hydrodynamics,” Annual Review of Fluid Me- chanics, vol. 48, pp. 105–130, 2016, arXiv: 1509.02184 ISBN: 1224140346

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    Fluid flow and sperm guidance: a simulation study of hydrodynamic sperm rheotaxis,

    K. Ishimoto and E. A. Gaffney, “Fluid flow and sperm guidance: a simulation study of hydrodynamic sperm rheotaxis,” Journal of The Royal Society Interface , vol. 12, no. 106, p. 20150172, May

    work page

  4. [4]

    Navigation of micro-swimmers in steady flow: the importance of symmetries,

    J. Qiu, N. Mousavi, K. Gustavsson, C. Xu, B. Mehlig, and L. Zhao, “Navigation of micro-swimmers in steady flow: the importance of symmetries,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics , vol. 932, p. A10, Feb. 2022

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    Slippery rheotaxis: new regimes for guiding wall-bound microswimmers,

    S. Ghosh and A. Poddar, “Slippery rheotaxis: new regimes for guiding wall-bound microswimmers,” Journal of Fluid Mechanics , vol. 967, p. A14, July 2023

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Soft erythrocyte-based bacterial microswimmers for cargo delivery,

    Y . Alapan, O. Yasa, O. Schauer, J. Giltinan, A. F. Tabak, V . Sourjik, and M. Sitti, “Soft erythrocyte-based bacterial microswimmers for cargo delivery,” Science Robotics , vol. 3, no. 17, p. eaar4423, Apr. 2018

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    Magnetically actuated microrobots as a platform for stem cell transplantation,

    S. Jeon, S. Kim, S. Ha, S. Lee, E. Kim, S. Y . Kim, S. H. Park, J. H. Jeon, S. W. Kim, C. Moon, B. J. Nelson, J. y. Kim, S. W. Yu, and H. Choi, “Magnetically actuated microrobots as a platform for stem cell transplantation,” Science Robotics, vol. 4, no. 30, pp. 1–12, 2019

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Nano/Microscale Motors: Biomedical Opportunities and Challenges,

    J. Wang and W. Gao, “Nano/Microscale Motors: Biomedical Opportunities and Challenges,” ACS Nano , vol. 6, no. 7, pp. 5745–5751, July 2012. [Online]. Available: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/ 10.1021/nn3028997

    doi:10.1021/nn3028997 2012

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Catalytic nanomotors for environmental monitoring and water remediation,

    L. Soler and S. S ´anchez, “Catalytic nanomotors for environmental monitoring and water remediation,” Nanoscale, vol. 6, no. 13, pp. 7175–7182, 2014. [Online]. Available: https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI= C4NR01321B

    2014

  2. [10]

    The Environmental Impact of Micro/Nanomachines: A Review,

    W. Gao and J. Wang, “The Environmental Impact of Micro/Nanomachines: A Review,” ACS Nano , vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 3170–3180, Apr. 2014. [Online]. Available: https://pubs.acs.org/ doi/10.1021/nn500077a

    2014 doi

  3. [11]

    Steering Control of Magnetic Helical Swimmers in Swirling Flows due to Confinement,

    H. O. Caldag and S. Yesilyurt, “Steering Control of Magnetic Helical Swimmers in Swirling Flows due to Confinement,” in 2020 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (ICRA) . Paris, France: IEEE, May 2020, pp. 6994–7000

    2020

  4. [12]

    Reinforce- ment learning with artificial microswimmers,

    S. Mui ˜nos-Landin, A. Fischer, V . Holubec, and F. Cichos, “Reinforce- ment learning with artificial microswimmers,” Science Robotics, vol. 6, no. 52, p. eabd9285, Mar. 2021

    2021

  5. [13]

    Dynamics of microswimmers near a liquid-liquid interface with viscosity difference,

    C. Feng, J. J. Molina, M. S. Turner, and R. Yamamoto, “Dynamics of microswimmers near a liquid-liquid interface with viscosity difference,” Physics of Fluids , vol. 35, no. 5, p. 051903, May 2023, arXiv:2212.05268 [cond-mat]. [Online]. Available: http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.05268

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Purcell’s three-link microswimmer based on IPMC: Simula- tions in COMSOL Multiphysics,

    A. J. Serrano, C. Nuevo-Gallardo, J. E. Traver, I. Tejado, and B. M. Vinagre, “Purcell’s three-link microswimmer based on IPMC: Simula- tions in COMSOL Multiphysics,” IEEE Latin America Transactions , vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 474–480, Mar. 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Reconfigurable artificial microswim- mers with internal feedback,

    L. Alvarez, M. A. Fernandez-Rodriguez, A. Alegria, S. Arrese-Igor, K. Zhao, M. Kr ¨oger, and L. Isa, “Reconfigurable artificial microswim- mers with internal feedback,” Nature Communications, vol. 12, no. 1, Dec. 2021, arXiv: 2009.08382 Publisher: Nature Research

    2021 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Controlled swimming in confined fluids of magnetically actuated colloidal rotors,

    P. Tierno, R. Golestanian, I. Pagonabarraga, and F. Sagu´es, “Controlled swimming in confined fluids of magnetically actuated colloidal rotors,” Physical Review Letters , vol. 101, no. 21, pp. 1–4, 2008

    2008

  9. [17]

    Artificial bacterial flagella for micromanipulation,

    L. Zhang, K. E. Peyer, and B. J. Nelson, “Artificial bacterial flagella for micromanipulation,” Lab on a Chip , vol. 10, no. 17, p. 2203,

  10. [18]

    Reconfigurable paramagnetic microswimmers: Brownian motion affects non-reciprocal actuation,

    D. Du, E. Hilou, and S. L. Biswal, “Reconfigurable paramagnetic microswimmers: Brownian motion affects non-reciprocal actuation,” Soft Matter , vol. 14, no. 18, pp. 3463–3470, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=C8SM00069G

    2018

  11. [19]

    A Customizable DNA and Microsphere-Based, Magnetically Actuated Microswim- mer,

    I. M. Harmatz, M. J. Travers, and R. E. Taylor, “A Customizable DNA and Microsphere-Based, Magnetically Actuated Microswim- mer,” Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems , vol. 29, no. 5, pp. 990–995, 2020

    2020

  12. [20]

    Multiple-robot drug delivery strategy through coordinated teams of microswimmers,

    U. Kei Cheang, K. Lee, A. A. Julius, and M. J. Kim, “Multiple-robot drug delivery strategy through coordinated teams of microswimmers,” Applied Physics Letters , vol. 105, no. 8, p. 83705, 2014. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4893695]

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    Self-assembly of robotic micro- and nanoswimmers using magnetic nanoparticles,

    U. K. Cheang and M. J. Kim, “Self-assembly of robotic micro- and nanoswimmers using magnetic nanoparticles,” Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 17, no. 3, p. 145, Mar. 2015

    2015

  14. [22]

    Magnetic Propulsion of Microswimmers with DNA-Based Flagellar Bundles,

    A. M. Maier, C. Weig, P. Oswald, E. Frey, P. Fischer, and T. Liedl, “Magnetic Propulsion of Microswimmers with DNA-Based Flagellar Bundles,” Nano Letters , vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 906–910, 2016

    2016

  15. [23]

    Swimming characteristics of helical microrobots in fibrous environ- ments,

    F. Ullrich, F. Qiu, J. Pokki, T. Huang, S. Pane, and B. J. Nelson, “Swimming characteristics of helical microrobots in fibrous environ- ments,” in 2016 6th IEEE International Conference on Biomedical Robotics and Biomechatronics (BioRob) . Singapore, Singapore: IEEE, June 2016...

    2016

  16. [24]

    Controllable Roll-to-Swim motion transition of helical nanoswimmers,

    A. Barbot, D. Decanini, and G. Hwang, “Controllable Roll-to-Swim motion transition of helical nanoswimmers,” in 2014 IEEE/RSJ Inter- national Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems . Chicago, IL, USA: IEEE, Sept. 2014, pp. 4662–4667

    2014

  17. [25]

    Adaptive locomotion of artificial microswimmers,

    H.-W. Huang, F. E. Uslu, P. Katsamba, E. Lauga, M. S. Sakar, and B. J. Nelson, “Adaptive locomotion of artificial microswimmers,” Science Advances, vol. 5, no. 1, p. eaau1532, Jan. 2019

    2019

  18. [26]

    Magnetically-actuated artificial cilia for microfluidic propulsion,

    S. N. Khaderi, C. B. Craus, J. Hussong, N. Schorr, J. Belardi, J. Westerweel, O. Prucker, J. R ¨uhe, J. M. Den Toonder, and P. R. Onck, “Magnetically-actuated artificial cilia for microfluidic propulsion,” Lab on a Chip , vol. 11, no. 12, pp. 2002–2010, 2011, arXiv: 0901.3687....

    2002 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Rotating magnetic micro-robots for versatile non-contact fluidic manipulation of micro-objects,

    E. Diller, Z. Ye, and M. Sitti, “Rotating magnetic micro-robots for versatile non-contact fluidic manipulation of micro-objects,” in 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems. San Francisco, CA: IEEE, Sept. 2011, pp. 1291–1296. [Online]. Availabl...

    2011

  20. [28]

    Programmable Generation and Motion Control of a Snakelike Magnetic Microrobot Swarm; Programmable Generation and Motion Control of a Snakelike Magnetic Microrobot Swarm,

    H. Xie, S. Member, X. Fan, S. Member, M. Sun, Z. Lin, Q. He, L. Sun, H. H. Xie Xie, X. Fan, M. Sun, L. Sun, and Z. Lin, “Programmable Generation and Motion Control of a Snakelike Magnetic Microrobot Swarm; Programmable Generation and Motion Control of a Snakelike Magnetic Micr...

    2019

  21. [29]

    Rotating Magnetic Miniature Swimming Robots With Multiple Flexible Flagella,

    Zhou Ye, S. Regnier, and M. Sitti, “Rotating Magnetic Miniature Swimming Robots With Multiple Flexible Flagella,” IEEE Transac- tions on Robotics , vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 3–13, Feb. 2014

    2014

  22. [30]

    Oscillatory rheotaxis of artificial swimmers in microchannels,

    R. Dey, C. M. Buness, B. V . Hokmabad, C. Jin, and C. C. Maass, “Oscillatory rheotaxis of artificial swimmers in microchannels,” Nature Communications, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 2952, May 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30611-1

    2022

  23. [31]

    Microfluidics for Microswimmers: Engineering Novel Swimmers and Constructing Swimming Lanes on the Microscale, a Tutorial Review,

    P. Sharan, A. Nsamela, S. C. Lesher-P ´erez, and J. Simmchen, “Microfluidics for Microswimmers: Engineering Novel Swimmers and Constructing Swimming Lanes on the Microscale, a Tutorial Review,” Small, vol. 17, no. 26, p. 2007403, July 2021. [Online]. Available: https://onlinel...

    2021 doi

  24. [32]

    A new approach to micro- scale particle image velocimetry ( µpiv) for quantifying flows around free-swimming zooplankton,

    B. J. Gemmell, H. Jiang, and E. J. Buskey, “A new approach to micro- scale particle image velocimetry ( µpiv) for quantifying flows around free-swimming zooplankton,” Journal of plankton research , vol. 36, no. 5, pp. 1396–1401, 2014

    2014

  25. [33]

    4d blood flow mapping using spim- micropiv in the developing zebrafish heart,

    V . Zickus and J. M. Taylor, “4d blood flow mapping using spim- micropiv in the developing zebrafish heart,” in Three-Dimensional and Multidimensional Microscopy: Image Acquisition and Processing XXV, vol. 10499. SPIE, 2018, pp. 99–105

    2018

  26. [34]

    High-speed three-dimensional characteri- zation of fluid flows induced by micro-objects in deep microchannels,

    C.-Y . Chen and K. Pekkan, “High-speed three-dimensional characteri- zation of fluid flows induced by micro-objects in deep microchannels,” BioChip Journal, vol. 7, pp. 95–103, 2013

    2013

  27. [35]

    Self-assembled autonomous runners and tumblers,

    S. Ebbens, R. A. Jones, A. J. Ryan, R. Golestanian, and J. R. Howse, “Self-assembled autonomous runners and tumblers,” Physical Review E - Statistical, Nonlinear , and Soft Matter Physics , vol. 82, no. 1, July 2010

    2010

  28. [36]

    Hybrid colloidal microswimmers through sequential capillary assembly,

    S. Ni, E. Marini, I. Buttinoni, H. Wolf, and L. Isa, “Hybrid colloidal microswimmers through sequential capillary assembly,” Soft Matter , vol. 13, no. 23, pp. 4252–4259, 2017, publisher: Royal Society of Chemistry

    2017

  29. [37]

    Molecular Engineering of Colloidal Atoms,

    Y . Cui, J. Wang, J. Liang, and H. Qiu, “Molecular Engineering of Colloidal Atoms,” Small, vol. 19, no. 20, May 2023, publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc

    2023

  30. [38]

    Active Synthetic Microrotors: Design Strategies and Applications,

    X. Lyu, J. Chen, R. Zhu, J. Liu, L. Fu, J. L. Moran, and W. Wang, “Active Synthetic Microrotors: Design Strategies and Applications,” ACS Nano , vol. 17, no. 13, pp. 11 969–11 993, July 2023, publisher: American Chemical Society

    2023

  31. [39]

    FABRICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF POLYCARBON- ATE SUBSTRATES FOR HIGH YIELD ASSEMBLY OF MULTI- COMPONENT BIOHYBRID MICROROBOTS,

    T. Imamura, M. Travers, S. Bergbreiter, R. Taylor, and U. Sonmez, “FABRICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF POLYCARBON- ATE SUBSTRATES FOR HIGH YIELD ASSEMBLY OF MULTI- COMPONENT BIOHYBRID MICROROBOTS,” in 22nd Intl Conf. Solid-State Sensors, Actuators and Microsystems (TRANSDUCERS...

    2023

  32. [40]

    Buoyant magnetic milliswimmers reveal design rules for optimizing microswimmer performance,

    E. Benjaminson, T. Imamura, A. Lorenz, S. Bergbreiter, M. Travers, and R. E. Taylor, “Buoyant magnetic milliswimmers reveal design rules for optimizing microswimmer performance,” Nanoscale, vol. 15, no. 34, pp. 14 175–14 188, Aug. 2023, publisher: Royal Society of Chemistry

    2023

  33. [41]

    Mo- tion Planning, Design Optimization and Fabrication of Ferromagnetic Swimmers,

    J. Singh Grover, D. Vedova, N. Jain, M. Travers, and H. Choset, “Mo- tion Planning, Design Optimization and Fabrication of Ferromagnetic Swimmers,” 2019

    2019

  34. [42]

    Life at Low Reynolds Number,

    E. Purcell, “Life at Low Reynolds Number,” vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 541–559, 1977, iSBN: 9780823644100

    1977

  35. [43]

    Solid Phase Synthesis of DNA Nanostructures in Heavy Liquid,

    I. Smyrlaki, A. Shaw, Y . Yang, B. Shen, and B. H¨ogberg, “Solid Phase Synthesis of DNA Nanostructures in Heavy Liquid,” Small, vol. 19, no. 4, Jan. 2023, publisher: John Wiley and Sons Inc

    2023

  36. [44]

    Micromixing with Linked Chains of Paramagnetic Particles,

    S. Lisa Biswal and A. P. Gast, “Micromixing with Linked Chains of Paramagnetic Particles,” Analytical Chemistry , vol. 76, no. 21, pp. 6338–6455, 2004. [Online]. Available: https://pubs.acs. org/sharingguidelines

    2004

  37. [2010]

    Available: https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=c004450b

    [Online]. Available: https://xlink.rsc.org/?DOI=c004450b

  38. [2015]

    Available: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10

    [Online]. Available: https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10. 1098/rsif.2015.0172

    2015

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.