Bacterial chemotaxis considering memory effects (letter)

Manuel Mayo; Rodrigo Soto

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 73 references

Bacterial chemotaxis considering memory effects (letter)

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that E. coli chemotaxis needs a second macroscopic field, the CheY-P moment, and that memory makes the response nonlocal over $L_0=170$ µm.

desk verdict A credible two-field extension of chemotaxis with memory, but the E. coli smoothing length is internally inconsistent and the closure is validated only where it is least controlled. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.15385 v1 pith:AHJTHTQS submitted 2025-04-21 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Manuel Mayo , Rodrigo Soto This is my paper · ORCID

classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph

keywords bacterialchemotaxismemoryeffectsrun-and-tumbleCheY-PChapman-EnskognonlocalresponseE.colismoothinglength

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

The paper argues that the standard Keller–Segel chemotaxis equations, which couple bacterial density locally to the chemical gradient, stop being valid once the chemoattractant varies on the tens-of-seconds timescale set by the slow methylation of E. coli chemoreceptors. On that scale, the macroscopic state must include a second field: the first moment of the CheY-P concentration, the protein that controls tumbling. The authors derive coupled reaction-diffusion equations for density and that moment, and the static response to a periodic signal is a Lorentzian in wavenumber, $\Psi_\rho(k,0)=\psi_0/(1+(k/k_0)^2)+\psi_1$, which becomes a smoothed response in real space with length $L_0=k_0^{-1}$. For measured E. coli parameters this smoothing length is about 170 µm, the same order as pore sizes and nutrient-patch scales in natural habitats. If correct, local chemotaxis models miss a real nonlocal effect in those environments.

What carries the argument

The central object is the normalized CheY-P fluctuation $X(t)$, modeled by the Langevin equation $\dot X=-(A(X,l)+B(X,l)\dot l)/\tau+\sqrt{2/\tau}\,\xi$, with $\tau\approx 19$ s the methylation-controlled memory time and $\dot l$ the ligand change in the swimmer's frame. At the kinetic level the distribution $f(\mathbf r,\hat{\mathbf n},X,t)$ obeys a Fokker–Planck equation in $X$ together with a run-and-tumble collision operator. The load-bearing step is the Chapman–Enskog closure that keeps the first CheY-P moment $\rho X$ as an approximately slow field because the dimensionless memory time $\hat\tau=\nu_0\tau\approx 4.2$ puts the internal relaxation close to the tumbling timescale. This closure produces the two-field equations with transport coefficients expressed as integrals over the kinetic solution; in the linear model the static response function is Lorentzian, $\Psi_\rho(k,0)=\psi_0/(1+(k/k_0)^2)+\psi_1$, with smoothing length $L_0=k_0^{-1}$.

What would settle it

Measure the steady density profile and local tumbling rate of E. coli in a microfluidic channel with a sharp step in chemoattractant; if the profile cannot be fit by $\rho_0+\rho_0 l_1\,\mathrm{sgn}(x)[\psi_1+\psi_0(1-e^{-k_0|x|})]$ with $L_0\approx 170\,\mu$m, or if a traveling-wave experiment shows no maximum in current versus wave speed near $V_s\approx 8\,\mu$m/s, the two-field memory closure is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the memory of the internal chemotaxis pathway cannot be removed by a short-gradient expansion; it must be promoted to a hydrodynamic field. Starting from a kinetic equation for the distribution over position, swimming direction, and the normalized CheY-P fluctuation $X$, the authors apply Chapman–Enskog closure with density $\rho$ and the first CheY-P moment $\rho X$ as the slow fields. The resulting equations (7)–(12) contain cross-diffusion and cross-mobility terms that vanish as the memory time goes to zero, recovering the classical local model. In the linear regime the static density response is a Lorentzian in wavenumber, implying a characteristic smoothing length $L_0$; a step signal gives the density profile $\rho(x)=\rho_0+\rho_0 l_1\,\mathrm{sgn}(x)[\psi_1+\psi_0(1-e^{-k_0|x|})]$. The same equations predict that the chemotactic current induced by a traveling wave is non-monotonic in wave speed, with a maximum in the order of the experimentally observed value.

Load-bearing premise

The two-field description treats the first CheY-P moment as approximately slow even though the memory time (19 s) and the tumbling reorientation time (about 4.5 s) differ by only a factor of about four; if that time-scale separation is not wide enough, the Chapman–Enskog closure and its transport coefficients are inaccurate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Where the chemoattractant profile varies on scales comparable to $L_0\approx 170\,\mu$m, the standard local model mispredicts both the density profile and the bacterial flux; the two-field equations are the replacement.
A sharp step in ligand concentration produces a density profile that is a smoothed step with exponential tails $e^{-k_0|x|}$, and the local average tumbling rate becomes a measurable proxy for the hidden CheY-P moment.
The response to a traveling chemoattractant wave is non-monotonic in wave speed, with a peak in the same order of magnitude as the measured $V_s\approx 8\,\mu$m/s, unlike the local Keller–Segel prediction.
In the short-memory limit $\tau\to0$, the cross-couplings vanish ($D_{12},\mu_{12}\to0$) and the classical equations are recovered, so the new description contains the old one as a limit.
The transport coefficients are explicit functions of measurable single-bacterium parameters, so the same equations can be instantiated for other strains or organisms without re-deriving the kinetic closure.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the Lorentzian response implies a cutoff for short-wavelength density fluctuations, so in a self-consistent model the memory length may suppress the classical chemotaxis aggregation instability; the paper does not discuss this.
Beyond the paper: the same two-field structure should apply to any run-and-tumble organism with a slow adaptation variable, and substituting that organism's $\tau$, $\nu_0$, and $\lambda$ gives a concrete testable prediction for its smoothing length.
Beyond the paper: because $L_0$ is only marginally larger than the run length $V/\nu_0\approx 123\,\mu$m, a decisive test would measure the step-response profile across mutants with altered methylation rates and check that the fitted $L_0$ grows with memory as shown in Fig. 1.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know two things about this letter. First, it has a real idea: including the CheY-P moment as a second slow field in a Chapman-Enskog expansion gives two-field hydrodynamic equations whose linear response is nonlocal, with a smoothing length that grows with memory time. That is a genuine extension of Keller-Segel for a regime that matters in soils and marine patches. Second, the quantitative claims for E. coli are not currently trustworthy: the reported smoothing length is internally inconsistent, and the agent-based validation was run at tau_hat=1, not at the E. coli parameters used for predictions.

The derivation is standard and reasonably transparent. The SM gives explicit Hermite-expansion coefficients for the linear model, so the two-field equations are reproducible in that case. The reduction to KS in the short-memory limit is a good check, and the step-profile simulation at tau_hat=1, lambda=1, alpha1=0 agrees nicely with the theory at that parameter point. The qualitative capture of the nonmonotonic traveling-wave current is suggestive even though the experiment lies outside linear response.

The problems come when the authors move to E. coli. They quote L0 = 1.7e2 um in the numerics section and 2.2e2 um in the conclusions; recomputing from their own D11, D12, D22 and Eq. (13) with gamma1=1 gives about 96 um. That is a three-way mismatch, not a rounding error. Worse, the only direct test of the closure is at tau_hat=1, where the memory time equals the run time and no time-scale separation exists. At tau_hat=4.2, the first neglected internal mode relaxes in about 9.5 s, the advection time across the predicted L0 is about 6 s, and epsilon ~ V/(nu0 L0) is O(1). The slow-field assumption for rho_X is therefore uncontrolled at exactly the parameter set used for the headline numbers. The authors acknowledge tau_hat=4.2 is large, but they do not quantify the error in the gradient expansion.

None of this kills the project. The two-field structure is likely right in a qualitative sense, and a full derivation exists in the companion paper. But the letter needs to fix the L0 numbers and either validate at tau_hat=4.2 or present the closure as a controlled approximation only in the short-memory limit. As it stands, I would send it to a serious referee because the idea is worth the referees' time, but I would not cite the E. coli numbers in my own work until they are reconciled.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This letter proposes a macroscopic description of run-and-tumble bacterial chemotaxis with internal memory. Starting from a kinetic equation for the distribution f(r,n,X,t), with X the normalized CheY-P concentration, the authors apply a Chapman-Enskog expansion and keep two slow fields: the bacterial density ρ and the first CheY-P moment ρX. The resulting hydrodynamic equations (7)-(12) contain cross-diffusion and chemotactic mobility coefficients; in the short-memory limit they reduce to the Keller-Segel model. For the linear model (A=X, B=b, C=e^{λX}), the authors give explicit transport coefficients in the Supplemental Material, a Lorentzian static response function Ψρ(k,0) with smoothing length L0=k0^{-1}, and a nonlocal step-signal density profile. They compare the profile with agent-based simulations at τ̂=1, and compare the predicted traveling-wave current with experiments on E. coli. For E. coli parameters they report numerical values of the transport coefficients and L0≈170-220 µm.

Significance. If the two-field equations are accurate, they provide a macroscopic closure that captures memory-induced nonlocal chemotaxis and they yield testable predictions (step-profile smoothing, nonmonotonic current versus wave speed). The manuscript includes reproducible analytic truncations for the linear model and a direct simulation comparison, which are strengths. However, the central quantitative claim depends on a closure whose validation is performed at parameters different from those used for the E. coli predictions, and the reported smoothing length is inconsistent with the reported transport coefficients. These issues need to be resolved before the result is fully convincing.

major comments (3)

[After Eq. (4); Fig. 2; Numerical values for E. coli] The numerical validation of the closure is performed at parameter values far from those used for the quantitative E. coli predictions. Fig. 2 uses τ̂=1.0, λ=1.0, α1=0, and L0=0.43 in units of V/ν0, whereas the E. coli section uses τ̂≈4.2, λ=1.62, α1=0.33. The justification for including ρX as a slow field in the paragraph after Eq. (4) explicitly relies on τ̂≈4.2, so the simulation at τ̂=1 does not test that premise. In addition, with the reported E. coli parameters the dimensionless gradient scale is ε≈V/(ν0 L0) ≈ 0.7-1.3 (depending on whether L0 is taken as 170 µm or 96 µm), so the Chapman-Enskog expansion is not a small-gradient expansion in the regime where the nonlocal response is predicted. The agreement shown in Fig. 2 is encouraging but does not establish the accuracy of the predicted L0 for E. coli.
[Numerical values for E. coli; Eq. (13); Conclusions] The value of the smoothing length is internally inconsistent. The Numerical values section states L0=1.7×10^2 µm; the earlier version of the Conclusions states L0=2.2×10^2 µm; the later version of the Conclusions states L0=170 µm. Moreover, substituting the reported coefficients D11=1.3×10^3 µm²/s, D12=0.81×10^3 µm²/s, D22=0.99×10^3 µm²/s, τ=19 s, and γ1=1 into Eq. (13) gives k0 = sqrt(D11γ1/[τ(D11D22−D12^2)]) ≈ 0.0104 µm^{-1}, i.e., L0≈96 µm. This direct computation disagrees with all three reported values. The authors must correct the quoted L0 values and ensure consistency between the transport coefficients and the derived smoothing length.
[Supplemental Material; Numerical values for E. coli] The supplementary material gives the linearized equations and the n=1 and n=2 analytical truncations, but the E. coli transport coefficients in the Numerical values section are not accompanied by the truncation order or a convergence test. The figure caption for Fig. 1 mentions truncation at n=10, but the reader cannot verify whether the quoted D and µ values are the n=10 results. Please state the truncation used and provide a small convergence table for the coefficients that enter the reported L0 and traveling-wave prediction.

minor comments (6)

[Fig. 1 caption] The caption states "Smoothing length L0 (left) and amplitude ψ0 (right)", while the surrounding text says "Amplitude ψ0 (left) and smoothing length L0 (right)"; the description of the two panels must be made consistent.
[Manuscript formatting] The manuscript contains duplicated text blocks and duplicated figures (two versions of Fig. 2 and of Fig. 3 with different captions, and repeated "Analysis" and "Numerical values" sections). These production artifacts should be removed before publication.
[Fig. 2 caption] The caption contains a typo "For thse parameters" and uses the relation "⟨X⟩ = ρ/ρX", which contradicts the definition ⟨X⟩≡ρX/ρ used in the main text.
[Conclusions] The conclusion contains an unresolved citation "[?]" in the sentence "can be measured for specific systems or computed for other models [?]"; this placeholder must be replaced.
[Reference [46]] Reference [46] is incomplete: it is cited as "Physical Review E X, X (2024)" with placeholder volume and page numbers, and must be updated to the published details.
[Fig. 2(a) and language] In Fig. 2(a) the phrase "the solid dashed line" is unclear; presumably the authors mean the solid and dashed lines for the memory-model and Keller-Segel predictions. Also, the Conclusions phrase "allow to compute" should be "allow one to compute".

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the nonlocal response and smoothing length are derived predictions from a kinetic model, not fits to the predicted quantities.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained in the sense relevant to circularity: the kinetic equation (3) is taken as the input model, the transport coefficients (D11,...,μ22) are computed from it by the Chapman–Enskog expansion, and the nonlocal response Ψρ(k,0), the smoothing length L0 = k0^{-1}, the step-signal density profile, and the traveling-wave current are evaluated from those coefficients using the experimental parameters (ν0, τ, λ, V, α1) fixed beforehand from E. coli measurements (Ref. [6]). No predicted quantity is used to set any input; for example, the ligand-coupling constant b cancels in L0, and the reported E. coli values are external experimental inputs. The short-memory limit τ→0 recovers the Keller–Segel equation, and the step-profile prediction is tested against agent-based simulations of the same kinetic equation (Fig. 2), so the closure is checked rather than used as its own evidence. The citations to Refs. [8] and [46] provide the kinetic model and the full derivation details; these are prior/companion modeling results and do not depend on the letter's predictions, so the self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The concerns about the uncontrolled gradient expansion at τ̂ = 4.2 and the internally inconsistent reported values of L0 (1.7×10^2 vs 2.2×10^2 μm, and ~96 μm if recomputed from the coefficients) are quantitative validation issues, not cases where an output equals an input by construction.

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

The central claim rests on the kinetic model of Ref [8] (same group), on fitted E. coli parameters (ν0, τ, λ from Ref [6], α1 from Ref [16]), and on the Chapman-Enskog slow-field closure. No new entities are introduced; the two-field description is a moment closure, not a new physical degree of freedom. The main unquantified assumption is the slowness of ρX.

free parameters (5)

ν0 (baseline tumbling rate) = 0.22 s^{-1}
From experimental tracking of E. coli in Ref [6]; used in the linear model to compute all transport coefficients.
τ (memory time) = 19 s
From Ref [6]; the only slow time scale in Eq. (2); sets the smoothing length L0.
λ (tumbling sensitivity) = 1.62
From Ref [6]; enters the tumbling rate C(X) = e^{λX} and the transport coefficients via bmm'.
b (ligand coupling constant)
Left as a free model parameter; the paper reports μ/b ratios and ψ0/b, so b is not fitted but must be specified per ligand.
α1 (tumbling angular memory) = 0.33
From Berg and Brown Ref [16]; the letter's results depend only on the first moment of the tumbling kernel w; simulations use α1=0.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Kinetic equation (3) governs the joint distribution of position, direction, and internal state X
Adopted from the authors' prior work Ref [8]; includes the Langevin dynamics Eq. (2) and the tumbling operator. The letter does not derive this model from biochemistry.
domain assumption The internal state X has a single stable fixed point in the absence of noise and admits a linear response regime with A(X) ~ X, B(X) ~ b for small X
Stated in the paragraph introducing Eq. (2); needed for the eigenfunction expansion and for the validity of the linear model.
standard math Chapman-Enskog normal solutions: f depends on space and time only through ρ and ρX
Standard assumption of the Chapman-Enskog method, stated in 'Macroscopic equations'; required to close the moment equations.
domain assumption ρX is an approximately slow field because τ̂ = ν0τ ≈ 4.2
The separation between the ρX relaxation rate (1/τ) and the tumbling rate (ν0) is only a factor of about 4; the letter treats it as large enough for the gradient expansion. This is the weakest link.
domain assumption The linear model A=X, B=b, C=e^{λX} is representative for E. coli
Used for all concrete numerical results; the letter acknowledges more realistic models exist but does not compute them.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bacterial chemotaxis considering memory effects (letter)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AHJTHTQS

@misc{pith2026250415385,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bacterial chemotaxis considering memory effects (letter)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AHJTHTQS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.15385}
}

read the original abstract

Chemotaxis in bacteria such as \textit{E.\ coli} is controlled by the slow methylation of chemoreceptors. As a consequence, intrinsic time and length scales of tens of seconds and hundreds of micrometers emerge, making the Keller--Segel equations invalid when the chemical signal changes on these scales, as occurs in several natural environments. Using a kinetic approach, we show that chemotaxis is described using the concentration field of the protein that controls tumbling in addition to bacterial density. The macroscopic equations for these fields are derived, which describe the nonlocal response.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.15385 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Stationary normalized density (a) and average tumbli (b) fild bfilid bling rate (b) profiles generated by a step function ligand FIG. 3. Stationary normalized density (a) and average tumbli (b) fild bfilid bling rate (b) profiles generated by a step function ligand [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Normalized bacterial current as a response to a travel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 18 canonical work pages

[1]

E. F. Keller and L. A. Segel, Initiation of slime mold ag- gregation viewed as an instability, Journal of theoretical biology 26 ,3 9 9( 1 9 7 0 )

work page
[2]

A way of making Europe

, and k0 = r D11γ1 τ(D11D22−D2 12). The density response function is Lorentzian in Fourier space, meaning that in real space is nonlocal, with a characteristic smoothing length L0 = k−1 0 . Figure 1 displays the response amplitudeψ0 andL0, where it is evident that the latter grows with memory. A possible experimental realization to measure this nonlocal e...
[3]

Figueroa-Morales, R

N. Figueroa-Morales, R. Soto, G. Junot, T. Darnige, C. Douarche, V. A. Martinez, A. Lindner, and E. Cl´ ement, 3D spatial exploration by E. coli echoes mo- tor temporal variability, Physical Review X 10 ,0 2 1 0 0 4 (2020)

work page 2020
[4]

E. F. Keller and L. A. Segel, Model for chemotaxis, Jour- nal of theoretical biology 30 ,2 2 5( 1 9 7 1 )

work page
[5]

Sarkar, G

A. Sarkar, G. Georgiou, and M. M. Sharma, Transport of bacteria in porous media: I. an experimental investiga- tion, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 44 ,4 8 9( 1 9 9 4 )

work page
[6]

Villa-Torrealba, S

A. Villa-Torrealba, S. Navia, and R. Soto, Kinetic mod- eling of the chemotactic process in run-and-tumble bac- teria, Physical Review E 107 ,0 3 4 6 0 5( 2 0 2 3 )

work page
[7]

R. M. Ford and R. W. Harvey, Role of chemotaxis in the transport of bacteria through saturated porous media, Advances in Water Resources 30 ,1 6 0 8( 2 0 0 7 )

work page
[8]

H. Mao, P. S. Cremer, and M. D. Manson, A sensitive, versatile microﬂuidic assay for bacterial chemotaxis, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 ,5 4 4 9 (2003)

work page 2003

Show all 73 references

[9]

Bhattacharjee and S

T. Bhattacharjee and S. S. Datta, Bacterial hopping and trapping in porous media, Nature communications 10 , 2075 (2019)

2019
[10]

N. A. Licata, B. Mohari, C. Fuqua, and S. Setayeshgar, Di ↵usion of bacterial cells in porous media, Biophysical journal 110 ,2 4 7( 2 0 1 6 )
[11]

A way of making Europe

H. C. Berg, E. coli in Motion (Springer Science & Busi- FIG. 2. Stationary normalized density (a) and average tum- bling rate (b) profiles generated by a step function ligand signal in the linear model. The blue circles represent the re- sults of the simulations of particles w...
[12]

, ψ1 = D22µ11−D12µ21 (D11D22−D2
[13]

H. C. Berg and D. A. Brown, Chemotaxis in Escherichia coli analysed by three-dimensional tracking, Nature 239 , 500 (1972)

1972
[14]

E. F. Keller and L. A. Segel, Initiation of slime mold ag- gregation viewed as an instability, Journal of theoretical biology 26, 399 (1970)

1970
[15]

E. F. Keller and L. A. Segel, Model for chemotaxis, Jour- nal of theoretical biology 30, 225 (1971)

1971
[16]

J. Yuan, R. W. Branch, B. G. Hosu, and H. C. Berg, Adaptation at the output of the chemotaxis signalling pathway, Nature 484, 233 (2012)

2012
[17]

Tu, Quantitative modeling of bacterial chemotaxis: signal amplification and accurate adaptation, Annual re- view of biophysics 42, 337 (2013)

Y. Tu, Quantitative modeling of bacterial chemotaxis: signal amplification and accurate adaptation, Annual re- view of biophysics 42, 337 (2013)

2013
[18]

Zhang, R

C. Zhang, R. He, R. Zhang, and J. Yuan, Motor adaptive remodeling speeds up bacterial chemotactic adaptation, Biophysical journal 114, 1225 (2018)

2018
[19]

Figueroa-Morales, R

N. Figueroa-Morales, R. Soto, G. Junot, T. Darnige, C. Douarche, V. A. Martinez, A. Lindner, and E. Cl´ ement, 3D spatial exploration by E. coli echoes mo- tor temporal variability, Physical Review X 10, 021004 (2020)

2020
[20]

super- contaminates

N. Figueroa-Morales, A. Rivera, R. Soto, A. Lind- ner, E. Altshuler, and ´E. Cl´ ement, E. coli “super- contaminates” narrow ducts fostered by broad run-time distribution, Science advances 6, eaay0155 (2020)

2020
[21]

Villa-Torrealba, S

A. Villa-Torrealba, S. Navia, and R. Soto, Kinetic mod- eling of the chemotactic process in run-and-tumble bac- teria, Physical Review E 107, 034605 (2023)

2023
[22]

Sarkar, G

A. Sarkar, G. Georgiou, and M. M. Sharma, Transport of bacteria in porous media: I. an experimental investiga- tion, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 44, 489 (1994)

1994
[23]

H. Mao, P. S. Cremer, and M. D. Manson, A sensitive, versatile microfluidic assay for bacterial chemotaxis, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100, 5449 (2003)

2003
[24]

R. M. Ford and R. W. Harvey, Role of chemotaxis in the 6 transport of bacteria through saturated porous media, Advances in Water Resources 30, 1608 (2007)

2007
[25]

N. A. Licata, B. Mohari, C. Fuqua, and S. Setayeshgar, Diffusion of bacterial cells in porous media, Biophysical journal 110, 247 (2016)

2016
[26]

Bhattacharjee and S

T. Bhattacharjee and S. S. Datta, Bacterial hopping and trapping in porous media, Nature communications 10, 2075 (2019)

2019
[27]

Blackburn, T

N. Blackburn, T. Fenchel, and J. Mitchell, Microscale nutrient patches in planktonic habitats shown by chemo- tactic bacteria, Science 282, 2254 (1998)

1998
[28]

Stocker, Marine microbes see a sea of gradients, sci- ence 338, 628 (2012)

R. Stocker, Marine microbes see a sea of gradients, sci- ence 338, 628 (2012)

2012
[29]

H. C. Berg and D. A. Brown, Chemotaxis in Escherichia coli analysed by three-dimensional tracking, Nature 239, 500 (1972)

1972
[30]

H. C. Berg, E. coli in Motion (Springer Science & Busi- ness Media, 2008)

2008
[31]

Taktikos, H

J. Taktikos, H. Stark, and V. Zaburdaev, How the motil- ity pattern of bacteria affects their dispersal and chemo- taxis, PLoS ONE 8, e81936 (2013)

2013
[32]

Tu and G

Y. Tu and G. Grinstein, How white noise generates power-law switching in bacterial flagellar motors, Physi- cal Review Letters 94, 208101 (2005)

2005
[33]

Y. Tu, T. S. Shimizu, and H. C. Berg, Modeling the chemotactic response of Escherichia coli to time-varying stimuli, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 105, 14855 (2008)

2008
[34]

Tostevin and P

F. Tostevin and P. Rein ten Wolde, Mutual information between input and output trajectories of biochemical net- works, Physical Review Letters 102, 218101 (2009)

2009
[35]

G. Lan, P. Sartori, S. Neumann, V. Sourjik, and Y. Tu, The energy–speed–accuracy trade-off in sensory adapta- tion, Nature Physics 8, 422 (2012)

2012
[36]

Ito and T

S. Ito and T. Sagawa, Maxwell’s demon in biochemical signal transduction with feedback loop, Nature Commu- nications 6, 7498 (2015)

2015
[37]

Y. S. Dufour, X. Fu, L. Hernandez-Nunez, and T. Emonet, Limits of feedback control in bacterial chemo- taxis, PLoS computational biology 10, e1003694 (2014)

2014
[38]

Wong-Ng, A

J. Wong-Ng, A. Melbinger, A. Celani, and M. Vergassola, The role of adaptation in bacterial speed races, PLoS computational biology 12, e1004974 (2016)

2016
[39]

Cluzel, M

P. Cluzel, M. Surette, and S. Leibler, An ultrasensitive bacterial motor revealed by monitoring signaling proteins in single cells, Science 287, 1652 (2000)

2000
[40]

F. Bai, R. W. Branch, D. V. Nicolau Jr, T. Pilizota, B. C. Steel, P. K. Maini, and R. M. Berry, Conforma- tional spread as a mechanism for cooperativity in the bacterial flagellar switch, science 327, 685 (2010)

2010
[41]

Colin, C

R. Colin, C. Rosazza, A. Vaknin, and V. Sourjik, Mul- tiple sources of slow activity fluctuations in a bacterial chemosensory network, Elife 6, e26796 (2017)

2017
[42]

J. M. Keegstra, K. Kamino, F. Anquez, M. D. Lazova, T. Emonet, and T. S. Shimizu, Phenotypic diversity and temporal variability in a bacterial signaling network re- vealed by single-cell fret, Elife 6, e27455 (2017)

2017
[43]

M. J. Schnitzer, Theory of continuum random walks and application to chemotaxis, Physical Review E 48, 2553 (1993)

1993
[44]

K. C. Chen, R. M. Ford, and C. P. T., Cell balance equation for chemotactic bacteria with a biphasic tum- bling frequency, Journal of Mathematical Biology47, 518 (2003)

2003
[45]

Lushi, R

E. Lushi, R. E. Goldstein, and M. J. Shelley, Collective chemotactic dynamics in the presence of self-generated fluid flows, Physical Review E 86, 040902 (2012)

2012
[46]

T. V. Kasyap and D. L. Koch, Chemotaxis driven insta- bility of a confined bacterial suspension, Physical Review Letters 108, 038101 (2012)

2012
[47]

Kasyap and D

T. Kasyap and D. L. Koch, Instability of an inho- mogeneous bacterial suspension subjected to a chemo- attractant gradient, Journal of fluid mechanics 741, 619 (2014)

2014
[48]

R. N. Bearon and T. J. Pedley, Modelling run-and-tumble chemotaxis in a shear flow, Bulletin of Mathematical Bi- ology 62, 775 (2000)

2000
[49]

M. J. Tindall, P. K. Maini, S. L. Porter, and J. P. Armitage, Overview of mathematical approaches used to model bacterial chemotaxis ii: bacterial populations, Bulletin of mathematical biology 70, 1570 (2008)

2008
[50]

Chalub, Y

F. Chalub, Y. Dolak-Struss, P. Markowich, D. Oelz, C. Schmeiser, and A. Soreff, Model hierarchies for cell aggregation by chemotaxis, Mathematical Models and Methods in Applied Sciences 16, 1173 (2006)

2006
[51]

Xue and H

C. Xue and H. G. Othmer, Multiscale models of taxis- driven patterning in bacterial populations, SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics 70, 133 (2009)

2009
[52]

G. Si, T. Wu, Q. Ouyang, and Y. Tu, Pathway-based mean-field model for escherichia coli chemotaxis, Physical review letters 109, 048101 (2012)

2012
[53]

G. Si, M. Tang, and X. Yang, A pathway-based mean- field model for e. coli chemotaxis: Mathematical deriva- tion and its hyperbolic and parabolic limits, Multiscale Modeling & Simulation 12, 907 (2014)

2014
[54]

Xue, Macroscopic equations for bacterial chemotaxis: integration of detailed biochemistry of cell signaling, Journal of mathematical biology 70, 1 (2015)

C. Xue, Macroscopic equations for bacterial chemotaxis: integration of detailed biochemistry of cell signaling, Journal of mathematical biology 70, 1 (2015)

2015
[55]

Celani and M

A. Celani and M. Vergassola, Bacterial strategies for chemotaxis response, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107, 1391 (2010)

2010
[56]

J. Long, S. W. Zucker, and T. Emonet, Feedback between motion and sensation provides nonlinear boost in run- and-tumble navigation, PLoS computational biology 13, e1005429 (2017)

2017
[57]

Forster, Hydrodynamic fluctuations, broken symmetry, and correlation functions (CRC Press, 2018)

D. Forster, Hydrodynamic fluctuations, broken symmetry, and correlation functions (CRC Press, 2018)

2018
[58]

P. M. Chaikin and T. C. Lubensky, Principles of Con- densed Matter Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1995)

1995
[59]

Mayo and R

M. Mayo and R. Soto, Bacterial chemotaxis considering memory effects, Physical Review E X, X (2024)

2024
[60]

Villa-Torrealba, C

A. Villa-Torrealba, C. Ch´ avez-Raby, P. de Castro, and R. Soto, Run-and-tumble bacteria slowly approaching the diffusive regime, Physical Review E 101, 062607 (2020)

2020
[61]

Chapman and T

S. Chapman and T. G. Cowling, The mathematical theory of non-uniform gases: an account of the kinetic theory of viscosity, thermal conduction and diffusion in gases (Cambridge university press, 1990)

1990
[62]

Sela and I

N. Sela and I. Goldhirsch, Hydrodynamic equations for rapid flows of smooth inelastic spheres, to burnett order, Journal of Fluid Mechanics 361, 41 (1998)

1998
[63]

Khalil, V

N. Khalil, V. Garz´ o, and A. Santos, Hydrodynamic bur- nett equations for inelastic maxwell models of granular gases, Physical Review E 89, 052201 (2014)

2014
[64]

Andreotti, Y

B. Andreotti, Y. Forterre, and O. Pouliquen, Granular media: between fluid and solid (Cambridge University Press, 2013). 7

2013
[65]

Brilliantov and T

N. Brilliantov and T. P¨ oschel,Kinetic theory of granular gases (Oxford University Press, 2004)

2004
[66]

Garz´ o,Granular gaseous flows (Springer, 2019)

V. Garz´ o,Granular gaseous flows (Springer, 2019)

2019
[67]

Soto, Kinetic Theory and Transport Phenomena , Ox- ford Master Series in Physics (Oxford University Press, 2016)

R. Soto, Kinetic Theory and Transport Phenomena , Ox- ford Master Series in Physics (Oxford University Press, 2016)

2016
[68]

S. Khan, S. Jain, G. P. Reid, and D. R. Trentham, The fast tumble signal in bacterial chemotaxis, Biophysical journal 86, 4049 (2004)

2004
[69]

Junot, T

G. Junot, T. Darnige, A. Lindner, V. A. Martinez, J. Arlt, A. Dawson, W. C. Poon, H. Auradou, and E. Cl´ ement, Run-to-tumble variability controls the sur- face residence times of e. coli bacteria, Physical Review Letters 128, 248101 (2022)

2022
[70]

Z. Li, Q. Cai, X. Zhang, G. Si, Q. Ouyang, C. Luo, and Y. Tu, Barrier crossing in escherichia coli chemotaxis, Physical review letters 118, 098101 (2017)

2017
[71]

A. P. Berke, L. Turner, H. C. Berg, and E. Lauga, Hy- drodynamic attraction of swimming microorganisms by surfaces, Physical Review Letters 101, 038102 (2008)

2008
[72]

G. B. Arfken, H. J. Weber, and F. E. Harris, Mathe- matical methods for physicists: a comprehensive guide (Academic press, 2011). 8 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL Linear equations for the functions in f (1) To first order in ε the distribution function f(1) satisfies the integro-diffe...

2011
[73]

(21)a-b imply that g1 = b and g2 = 0

= 1, Eqs. (21)a-b imply that g1 = b and g2 = 0. Hence, by Eqs. (16), E1(X) = bX, E2(X) = 0 and E3(X) = E4(X) = b(X2− 1). Finally, the orthogonality of the Hermite polynomials imply that g3 = g4 = 0, g5 = bV 2O0/(dν0) = −bD11, g6 = bV 2P0/(dν0) = bD12, g7 = bV 2Q0/(dˆτ) = bµ11,...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

E. F. Keller and L. A. Segel, Initiation of slime mold ag- gregation viewed as an instability, Journal of theoretical biology 26 ,3 9 9( 1 9 7 0 )

work page

[2] [2]

A way of making Europe

, and k0 = r D11γ1 τ(D11D22−D2 12). The density response function is Lorentzian in Fourier space, meaning that in real space is nonlocal, with a characteristic smoothing length L0 = k−1 0 . Figure 1 displays the response amplitudeψ0 andL0, where it is evident that the latter grows with memory. A possible experimental realization to measure this nonlocal e...

[3] [3]

Figueroa-Morales, R

N. Figueroa-Morales, R. Soto, G. Junot, T. Darnige, C. Douarche, V. A. Martinez, A. Lindner, and E. Cl´ ement, 3D spatial exploration by E. coli echoes mo- tor temporal variability, Physical Review X 10 ,0 2 1 0 0 4 (2020)

work page 2020

[4] [4]

E. F. Keller and L. A. Segel, Model for chemotaxis, Jour- nal of theoretical biology 30 ,2 2 5( 1 9 7 1 )

work page

[5] [5]

Sarkar, G

A. Sarkar, G. Georgiou, and M. M. Sharma, Transport of bacteria in porous media: I. an experimental investiga- tion, Biotechnology and Bioengineering 44 ,4 8 9( 1 9 9 4 )

work page

[6] [6]

Villa-Torrealba, S

A. Villa-Torrealba, S. Navia, and R. Soto, Kinetic mod- eling of the chemotactic process in run-and-tumble bac- teria, Physical Review E 107 ,0 3 4 6 0 5( 2 0 2 3 )

work page

[7] [7]

R. M. Ford and R. W. Harvey, Role of chemotaxis in the transport of bacteria through saturated porous media, Advances in Water Resources 30 ,1 6 0 8( 2 0 0 7 )

work page

[8] [8]

H. Mao, P. S. Cremer, and M. D. Manson, A sensitive, versatile microﬂuidic assay for bacterial chemotaxis, Pro- ceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 100 ,5 4 4 9 (2003)

work page 2003