Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Growing, Buckling, and Swirling: motility from polymerization

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-07-14 · grok-4.5

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

Pith's one-line read Polymerizing surface filaments buckle collectively and, by how they are patterned, can spin, translate, or chirally swim a free particle.

desk verdict Clean continuum theory that closes polymerization kinetics to free-swimmer gaits; the buckling criterion and nucleation-pattern map are new and self-consistent inside the stated thin-carpet regime. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.10446 v1 pith:4QPVDABT submitted 2026-07-11 cond-mat.soft physics.flu-dyn

Naveen Kumar D , Michael J. Shelley , Brato Chakrabarti This is my paper
classification cond-mat.softphysics.flu-dyn
keywords polymerization-drivenmotilityfilamentcarpetbucklinglow-Reynolds-numberswimmingactivetractionlayerpolaritydynamicsnucleationpatterningStokesboundaryintegralssyntheticmicroswimmers
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 builds a continuum theory for a dense carpet of surface-anchored filaments that nucleate, grow, and catastrophically depolymerize while interacting with Stokes flow. Polymerization generates compressive forces that, above a density- and activity-dependent threshold, drive a long-wavelength buckling instability: the whole carpet tilts together, spontaneously breaking symmetry and producing large-scale flows. When the carpet coats a force- and torque-free sphere or spheroid, the spatial pattern of nucleation sites selects the rigid-body motion—uniform coating yields pure spinning, an equatorial band or four-fold patches yield directed translation, and a helical band yields chiral swimming. The work supplies a self-consistent micro–macro loop from filament kinetics to net locomotion and frames polymerization itself as a programmable route to micron-scale swimming.

What carries the argument

A closed micro–macro continuum model: adiabatic elimination of fast length dynamics yields a polarity field n whose evolution is driven by Jeffery reorientation, torsional springs, and catastrophe; the polarity is coarse-grained into an active traction jump on an offset surface that forces Stokes flow and, through force- and torque-free constraints, determines the particle’s rigid-body velocity.

What would settle it

Measure whether a free colloid or bacterium coated with a known nucleation pattern (uniform, equatorial band, four-fold patches, or helical band) exhibits the predicted rigid-body motion—pure spin, straight translation, or chiral swimming—once mean filament length and density place the system above the analytic buckling threshold.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Polymerization-induced compressive forces on a surface-anchored filament carpet produce a long-wavelength buckling instability whose growth rate is maximal at zero wavenumber once activity exceeds an explicit threshold set by density, elastic restoring torque, and catastrophe rate. Coupling the resulting polarity dynamics and traction to a free spheroidal particle then yields spontaneous spinning, directed motility, or chiral swimming according to the spatial pattern of nucleation sites.

Load-bearing premise

The model replaces the distributed forces of the whole filament bed by a single traction jump on a fixed surface offset by the mean filament length, which is valid only when the body is much larger than that length.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Nucleation patterning functions as a surface code that programs whether a micron-scale body spins, translates, or follows helical paths.
  • Predicted swimming speeds of order 0.1–1 µm/s are reachable from polymerization alone, without molecular motors.
  • The same architecture applies to motor-driven cortical filament beds once growth is replaced by motor activity.
  • Body shape couples residual polar asymmetry to drag anisotropy, converting straight chiral swimming of a sphere into a tightly wound helical trajectory for a prolate spheroid.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Pairwise or many-body hydrodynamic interactions among several such patterned particles should produce flocking or clustering whose selection rules can be read from the single-body force–torque balance.
  • A hybrid discrete-continuum treatment that retains steric contacts and large deformations would extend the theory into the long-fiber regime of cellulose-extruding bacteria, where the thin-carpet assumption fails.
  • The geometric dual—filaments growing outward from a central organizer and buckling against an enclosing cortex—should yield centering forces by the same buckling mechanism that here yields locomotion.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a self-consistent continuum (mean-field) framework for low-Re motility driven by surface-anchored polymerizing filaments. Filament nucleation, growth, catastrophe, and orientational dynamics are coupled to Stokes flow via a coarse-grained traction jump on an offset surface; the polarity field is closed with a polar Bingham approximation and the free-body problem is solved with a force- and torque-free boundary-integral method. Analytically, a half-space linear stability calculation yields a long-wavelength buckling instability of the upright carpet (dispersion maximal at k=0 when activity exceeds an elastic/catastrophe threshold). Numerically, when the carpet is placed on a free sphere or spheroid, the spatial pattern of nucleation sites selects among spontaneous spinning (uniform or equatorial band), directed translation (fourfold patches), and chiral swimming (helical band), with body shape further modulating trajectories via drag anisotropy.

Significance. If the results hold within the stated thin-carpet regime, the paper supplies a genuine theoretical foundation for polymerization as a generic propulsion mechanism and a concrete design map (nucleation pattern → force/torque balance → gait). Strengths include an explicit analytic dispersion relation for the buckling threshold, a clean force/torque-free formulation, and systematic use of documented numerical tools (Bingham polar closure with Chebyshev inversion, BIM+QBX via FMM3DBIE). The gait-selection results and the comparison to an equivalent squirmer are falsifiable and point toward programmable synthetic microswimmers. The work also unifies polymerization-driven exterior swimming with related motor-driven cortical-flow models, which is of clear interest to soft-matter and biological fluid mechanics.

major comments (2)
  1. Sec. V (and the design claim in Sec. VI): the central statement that nucleation patterning alone selects spinning vs directed translation vs chiral swimming is demonstrated only for a few fixed dimensionless parameter sets (ρ̄, σ̄, λ̄, χ). Without a modest parameter sweep or phase diagram showing that the same patterns remain force- or torque-dominated when activity and density are varied across the unstable region of Fig. 4, it is hard to judge how robust the gait map is. A short supplementary scan (or even two additional runs per pattern near the stability boundary) would make the selection claim load-bearing rather than anecdotal.
  2. Sec. III, Eqs. (31)–(33): the half-space linearization is the analytic core of the paper, yet the passage from the linearized polarity and traction jump to the explicit dispersion ω(k)=−(λ̄+1)+e^{−k}(1−k)ρ̄(−χ+σ̄) is given with almost no intermediate algebra (Stokes solution for a planar traction jump, projection onto the tilt mode, etc.). Because the long-wavelength criterion is used to justify all subsequent nonlinear work, the derivation should be expanded (main text or SI) so that the (1−k)e^{−k} factor and the k=0 threshold can be reproduced independently.
minor comments (5)
  1. Fig. 4 inset and Sec. V: numerical values of χ, β, η used in the free-particle runs are not always listed in the figure captions; please state them consistently so that the runs can be reproduced.
  2. Sec. VI, squirmer comparison: the reported factor-of-1.5 overestimate of angular velocity is interesting but left as a possible surface-choice ambiguity. A one-sentence quantification of how the slip surface is chosen (∂S vs a weighted average) would clarify whether the discrepancy is expected or a numerical issue.
  3. Notation: the same symbols are reused for dimensional and dimensionless quantities after Sec. II D; a brief reminder in the figure captions (or a table of dimensionless groups) would help readers.
  4. Abstract and Introduction lead with Acetobacter xylinum, whose long fibers are later acknowledged to violate the thin-carpet assumption. A short clarifying clause that the present claims apply to the thin-carpet (actin-colloid) regime, with Acetobacter as longer-term motivation, would avoid over-promising.
  5. Typos / polish: “Poincar´ e–Hopf” (accent), “Drosophilaoocytes” (missing space), and a few doubled spaces in the reference list; also arXiv dates in the header (2026) look like placeholders.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: analytic buckling threshold and pattern-selected gaits follow from the stated continuum equations and their numerical solution; self-citations supply reusable methods whose assumptions are independent of the polymerization-motility claims.

full rationale

The load-bearing analytic result (long-wavelength buckling with ω(k) maximal at k=0 when σ̄ > χ + (λ̄+1)/ρ̄) is obtained by direct linearization of the polarization and traction equations about the uniform base state in half-space geometry (Sec. III, Eqs. 31–33); the derivation does not invoke external uniqueness theorems, fitted parameters, or self-referential definitions. Subsequent free-body gaits (spinning for uniform/equatorial, directed translation for fourfold, chiral swimming for helical) are obtained by solving the same closed micro–macro system (Bingham-closed polarity evolution + traction-layer Stokes BIM + force/torque-free constraints) for different prescribed nucleation densities ρ(y). Self-citations ([28], [36], FMM3DBIE) supply the Bingham closure, traction-layer representation, and boundary-integral library; these are standard numerical tools whose validity conditions (scale separation, thin carpet) are stated independently of the motility outcomes and do not force the buckling criterion or the force/torque selection by patterning. No quantity is fitted to data and then re-presented as a prediction, and no ansatz is smuggled in as a uniqueness result. The traction-layer approximation is an explicit modeling restriction (body size ≫ ℓ̄), already flagged by the authors as limiting for long-fiber Acetobacter, not a circular step. Inside the stated regime the derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper is a continuum theory built from standard Stokes hydrodynamics, slender-body theory, and mean-field kinetic theory. Free parameters are dimensionless control groups chosen for illustration, not fitted to data. Load-bearing modeling axioms are the thin-carpet traction layer, adiabatic elimination of length dynamics, rigid-rod + torsional-spring idealization, and Bingham polar closure. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are postulated.

free parameters (3)
  • surface density ρ̄ and activity σ̄
    Primary control parameters of the instability and nonlinear states; values (e.g. ρ̄=10, σ̄=3.8) chosen for representative simulations, not fitted to experiment.
  • dimensionless catastrophe rate λ̄
    Sets filament turnover; appears in stability threshold and polarization sink; chosen illustratively (λ̄=4.5 in Fig. 4).
  • geometric factors χ, β and aspect-ratio η
    Encode length-distribution moments and slenderness; reduce to constants for monodisperse carpets; set by modeling choice rather than data fit.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Incompressible Stokes equations govern the fluid (Re=0).
    Standard low-Re premise stated in Sec. I and used throughout.
  • domain assumption Filaments are rigid rods of time-dependent length with torsional springs at the base; force density from slender-body theory.
    Sec. II B; replaces full elastic filament dynamics for mean-field tractability.
  • domain assumption Length kinetics equilibrate fast relative to reorientation (adiabatic elimination ψ≈Ψ_sm g̃).
    Sec. II C; justified by biological time-scale separation (τ_r ~ 10^3 s vs λ^{-1} ~ 20–30 s) but remains an assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Distributed filament forces may be replaced by a traction jump on a fixed offset surface ∂S = ∂D + ℓ̄ ϑ̂.
    Sec. II C; thin-carpet approximation inherited from ciliary models; validity requires body size ≫ ℓ̄.
  • domain assumption Orientational distribution is of Bingham polar form; higher moments closed via precomputed Chebyshev map of |n|.
    Sec. IV A; standard closure in active-matter literature, accuracy not re-validated here against full Fokker–Planck.
  • domain assumption Nucleation and catastrophe enter only through mean rates γ, λ (mean-field kinetics).
    Sec. II A; Poisson processes replaced by deterministic drift and sink.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Growing, Buckling, and Swirling: motility from polymerization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4QPVDABT

@misc{pith2026260710446,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Growing, Buckling, and Swirling: motility from polymerization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4QPVDABT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10446}
}
read the original abstract

Locomotion in low-Reynolds-number environments is achieved through a remarkable diversity of strategies, from flagellar rotation and ciliary beating to large-scale body deformations. A distinct and biologically important class of propulsion arises when surface-anchored filaments grow and collectively reorient - as seen in the cellulose-extruding bacterium Acetobacter xylinum and in recent experiments on actin-propelled synthetic colloids inspired by the motility of Listeria monocytogenes - suggesting that polymerization itself is a generic route to self-propulsion. Developing a theoretical framework for this class of problems requires simultaneously resolving filament kinetics, their orientational dynamics, and fluid-structure interactions - all self-consistently coupled to the resulting locomotion. To address this, we formulate a continuum framework in which the active forces driving locomotion emerge self-consistently from filament nucleation, growth, catastrophe, and hydrodynamic interactions. We show analytically that polymerization-induced compressive forces drive a long-wavelength buckling instability, leading to spontaneous symmetry breaking of the filament carpet and large-scale flows. In coupling this framework to a force- and torque-free motile spheroidal particle, a wide variety of behaviors emerge - this includes spontaneous spinning, directed motility, and chiral swimming - whose selection is governed by the spatial patterning of polymerizing filaments. These results establish a general theoretical foundation for motility, driven by collective dynamics of polymerizing filaments and point towards new design principles for synthetic micron-scale swimmers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10446 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic illustrating force generation due to fil [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Schematic of filament polymerization kinetics. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Model of a mobile rigid body moved by a growing active carpet. (a) The body translates with velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Linear stability analysis in a half-space about the base [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Evolution of the polarity field on a fixed sphere with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Dynamics and flow field in the equatorial band configuration. (a) Snapshots of the polarity field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Dynamics of the sphere in the polar-patch configura [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Time evolution of the polarity field on the sphere’s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. (a) Snapshots of the polarity field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 1 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    s. Motivated by this scale separation, we adopt the Ansatz ψ≈Ψ sm(y, ℓ)˜g(y,p, t),(17) where the function ˜gis effectively independent ofℓ, up to weak variations required to satisfy the boundary con- ditions. Physically, the rapid equilibration of filament- length distributions allows adiabatic elimination of poly- mer growth and decay, leaving the slow o...

  2. [2]

    that recasts the governing PDEs as integral equations on the surfaces. In this approach, we represent the fluid velocity at any pointxin the domain as a combination of two single-layer operators given as u(x) =− Z ∂D G(x,y)·f w(y) dA− Z ∂S G(x,y)·F a(y) dA. (37) Heref w(y) is the unknown hydrodynamic traction ex- erted by the fluid on the rigid-body surfa...

  3. [3]

    E. M. Purcell,American Journal of Physics, 1977,45, 3–11

    1977

  4. [4]

    G. K. Batchelor, inFlow of a Uniform Incompressible Viscous Fluid, Cambridge University Press, 2000, p. 174–263

    2000

  5. [5]

    H. C. Berg,Annual Review of Biochemistry, 2003,72, 19–54

    2003

  6. [6]

    G. I. Taylor,Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 1951, 209, 447–461

    1951

  7. [7]

    Elgeti and G

    J. Elgeti and G. Gompper,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2013,110, 4470–4475

    2013

  8. [8]

    Machemer,Journal of Experimental Biology, 1972,57, 239–259

    H. Machemer,Journal of Experimental Biology, 1972,57, 239–259

    1972

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    L. Aoun, A. Farutin, N. Garcia-Seyda, P. N` egre, M. S. Rizvi, S. Tlili, S. Song, X. Luo, M. Biarnes-Pelicot, R. Galland, J.-B. Sibarita, A. Michelot, C. Hivroz, S. Rafai, M.-P. Valignat, C. Misbah and O. Theodoly, Biophysical Journal, 2020,119, 1157–1177

    2020

  2. [10]

    Farutin, S

    A. Farutin, S. Rafa¨ ı, D. K. Dysthe, A. Duperray, P. Peyla and C. Misbah,Phys. Rev. Lett., 2013,111, 228102

    2013

  3. [11]

    M. J. Lighthill,Communications on Pure and Applied Mathematics, 1952,5, 109–118

    1952

  4. [12]

    J. R. Blake,Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1971,46, 199– 208

    1971

  5. [13]

    Ishikawa,Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2024, 56, 119–145

    T. Ishikawa,Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, 2024, 56, 119–145

    2024

  6. [14]

    Ishikawa, T

    T. Ishikawa, T. J. Pedley, K. Drescher and R. E. Gold- stein,Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2020,903, A11

    2020

  7. [15]

    Chamolly and T

    A. Chamolly and T. Ishikawa,Journal of Fluid Mechan- ics, 2026,1030, A22

    2026

  8. [16]

    Chakrabarti, S

    B. Chakrabarti, S. F¨ urthauer and M. J. Shelley,Proceed- ings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2022,119, e2113539119

    2022

  9. [17]

    C. E. Monteith, M. E. Brunner, I. Djagaeva, A. M. Bi- elecki, J. M. Deutsch and W. M. Saxton,Biophysical Journal, 2016,110, 2053–2065

    2016

  10. [18]

    D. B. Stein, G. De Canio, E. Lauga, M. J. Shelley and R. E. Goldstein,Phys. Rev. Lett., 2021,126, 028103

    2021

  11. [19]

    Y. Lin, V. Shenoy, B. Hu and L. Bai,Biophysical Journal, 2010,99, 1043–1052

    2010

  12. [20]

    Howard,Mechanics of Motor Proteins and the Cytoskeleton, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mas- sachusetts, 2001

    J. Howard,Mechanics of Motor Proteins and the Cytoskeleton, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mas- sachusetts, 2001

    2001

  13. [21]

    Phillips, J

    R. Phillips, J. Kondev, J. Theriot and H. G. Garcia, Physical Biology of the Cell, Garland Science, 2nd edn., 2012

    2012

  14. [22]

    K. V. Kumar, M. M. Inamdar, P. A. Pullarkat and G. I. Menon,Forces at the scale of the cell, 2025,https:// arxiv.org/abs/2512.08311

    2025

  15. [23]

    Joanny and J

    J.-F. Joanny and J. Prost,HFSP journal, 2009,3, 94– 104

    2009

  16. [24]

    Diotallevi,external PhD, WU, Wageningen University, 2007

    F. Diotallevi,external PhD, WU, Wageningen University, 2007

    2007

  17. [25]

    R. E. Cannon, inAcetobacter xylinum — Biotechnol- ogy and Food Technology, ed. N. Eynard and J. Teissi´ e, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2000, pp. 104–107

    2000

  18. [26]

    J. D. Lopes, B. Winterstrain, F. Caballero, A. Chardac, I. Alvarado, A. T. D. Cusi, S. A. Dalal, G. Kelly, M. R. Stehnach, B. L. Goode, T. G. Fai, M. F. Hagan, M. M. Norton and G. Duclos, author, 2025

    2025

  19. [27]

    Bunea and R

    A.-I. Bunea and R. Taboryski,Micromachines, 2020,11, year

    2020

  20. [28]

    Ganguly and K

    S. Ganguly and K. Raj,European Journal of Mechanics - B/Fluids, 2026,119, 204529

    2026

  21. [29]

    Farhadifar, C.-H

    R. Farhadifar, C.-H. Yu, G. Fabig, H.-Y. Wu, D. B. Stein, M. Rockman, T. M¨ uller-Reichert, M. J. Shelley and D. J. Needleman,eLife, 2020,9, e55877

    2020

  22. [30]

    Chakrabarti, M

    B. Chakrabarti, M. Rachh, S. Y. Shvartsman and M. J. Shelley,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2024,121, e2405114121. 14

    2024

  23. [31]

    G. K. Batchelor,Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 1970,44, 419–440

    1970

  24. [32]

    G. B. Jeffery,Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- don. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathematical and Physical Character, 1922,102, 161–179

    1922

  25. [33]

    Dutta, R

    S. Dutta, R. Farhadifar, W. Lu, G. Kabacao˘ glu, R. Blackwell, D. B. Stein, M. Lakonishok, V. I. Gelfand, S. Y. Shvartsman and M. J. Shelley,Nature Physics, 2024,20, 666–674

    2024

  26. [34]

    O. Jain, B. Chakrabarti, R. Farhadifar, E. R. Gavis, M. J. Shelley and S. Y. Shvartsman,PRX Life, 2025, 3, 023007

    2025

  27. [35]

    Keller, T

    S. Keller, T. Wu and C. Brennen, 1975

    1975

  28. [36]

    Ishikawa, T

    T. Ishikawa, T. Pedley, K. Drescher and R. E. Goldstein, Journal of Fluid Mechanics, 2020,903, A11

    2020

  29. [37]

    A. V. Kanale, F. Ling, H. Guo, S. F¨ urthauer and E. Kanso,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sci- ences, 2022,119, e2214413119

    2022

  30. [38]

    Weady, M

    S. Weady, M. J. Shelley and D. B. Stein,Journal of Com- putational Physics, 2022,457, 110937

    2022

  31. [39]

    Kim and S

    S. Kim and S. Karrila,Microhydrodynamics: Principles and Selected Applications, Dover Publications, 2005

    2005

  32. [40]

    Rachh, A

    M. Rachh, A. Kl¨ ockner and M. O’Neil,Journal of Com- putational Physics, 2017,345, 706–731

    2017

  33. [41]

    Corona, L

    E. Corona, L. Greengard, M. Rachh and S. Veerapaneni, Journal of Computational Physics, 2017,332, 504–519

    2017

  34. [42]

    J. B. Glotzer, R. Saffrich, M. Glotzer and A. Ephrussi, Current Biology, 1997,7, 326–337

    1997

  35. [43]

    M. E. Quinlan,Annual review of cell and developmental biology, 2016,32, 173–195

    2016

  36. [44]

    Ganguly, L

    S. Ganguly, L. S. Williams, I. M. Palacios and R. E. Gold- stein,Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2012,109, 15109–15114

    2012

  37. [45]

    Khuc Trong, H

    P. Khuc Trong, H. Doerflinger, J. Dunkel, D. St Johnston and R. E. Goldstein,Elife, 2015,4, e06088

    2015

  38. [46]

    Lauga and T

    E. Lauga and T. R. Powers,Reports on Progress in Physics, 2009,72, 096601

    2009

  39. [47]

    Y. Li, F. H. Wang and R. B. Knox,Protoplasma, 1989, 149, 57–63

    1989

  40. [48]

    K. Das, H. Zhu, M. Bonnet and S. Veerapaneni,Squirm- ers with arbitrary shape and slip: modeling, simulation, and optimization, 2026,https://arxiv.org/abs/2602. 19336

    2026

  41. [49]

    H. A. Stone and A. D. T. Samuel,Phys. Rev. Lett., 1996, 77, 4102–4104

    1996

  42. [50]

    Kimura, A

    K. Kimura, A. Mamane, T. Sasaki, K. Sato, J. Takagi, R. Niwayama, L. Hufnagel, Y. Shimamoto, J.-F. Joanny, S. Uchidaet al.,Nature Cell Biology, 2017,19, 399–406

    2017

  43. [51]

    Sulerud, A

    T. Sulerud, A. B. Sami, G. Li, A. Kloxin, J. Oakey and J. Gatlin,Molecular biology of the cell, 2020,31, 2791– 2802

    2020

  44. [52]

    X. Gong, A. J. Mathijssen, Z. Bryant and M. Prakash, Physical Review Fluids, 2021,6, 123104

    2021

  45. [53]

    J. D. Lopes, B. Winterstrain, F. Caballero, A. Chardac, I. Alvarado, A. T. Cusi, S. Dalal, G. Kelly, M. R. Stehnach, B. L. Goode, T. G. Fai, M. F. Hagan, M. M. Norton and G. Duclos,Emergence of Anti-chemotactic Flocking in Active Biomimetic Colloids, 2025,https: //arxiv.org/ab...

    2025 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed July 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.