Dynamic Force Measurements on Swimming Chlamydomonas Cells using Micropipette Force Sensors

Christian T. Kreis; Oliver B\"aumchen; Quentin Magdelaine; Stefan Karpitschka; Thomas J. B\"oddeker

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 43 references

Dynamic Force Measurements on Swimming Chlamydomonas Cells using Micropipette Force Sensors

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read First direct measurement: beating flagella of Chlamydomonas exert 23±5 pN

desk verdict The first time-resolved in vivo flagellar force measurement is credible and internally consistent, but the headline 23 pN value depends on a modelled boundary-condition transfer that is not directly measured. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.03602 v1 pith:7UUBR4OM submitted 2019-08-09 physics.bio-ph cond-mat.soft

Thomas J. Böddeker , Stefan Karpitschka , Christian T. Kreis , Quentin Magdelaine , Oliver Bäumchen This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.bio-phcond-mat.soft

keywords dynamicmicropipetteforcesensorChlamydomonasreinhardtiiflagellarbeatingpiconewtonmeasurementfrequencyresponsecalibrationelasto-hydrodynamicmodelhydrodynamicwallinteractionsmicroswimmerforces

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 reports the first direct, time-resolved measurement of the oscillatory forces generated by the beating flagella of a swimming microorganism. Using a flexible double-L-shaped glass micropipette as a force sensor, with a single Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cell partly sucked onto its tip, the authors record pipette deflections at 400 frames per second and extract the periodic component of the flagellar force from the power spectrum. In bulk liquid the coordinated flagellar beating produces a dynamic force of 23±5 pN at a beating frequency of 51±6 Hz. Near a solid wall the measured force rises as the cell approaches, starting at distances larger than the flagella can reach, which the authors attribute to hydrodynamic interactions between the beating flagella and the wall. The method extends micropipette-based force sensing from static to dynamic piconewton measurements.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the elasto-hydrodynamic model of the micropipette cantilever, which couples the Kirchhoff equation for a tapered elastic beam to the time-dependent Stokes equation for the surrounding viscous fluid. The fluid loading enters through the Sader hydrodynamic function $\Gamma(x,\omega)$, and the nozzle is treated as a thin cylinder in axial oscillation coupled as a concentrated load at the cantilever tip. The model is fitted to dynamic calibrations in which the pipette base is oscillated by a piezo with a free tip, and then the fitted geometry corrections are used to compute the frequency response for the active-cell boundary condition, a stationary base with a concentrated time-varying force at the tip. This computed response $\chi(\mu)$ is what converts the measured spectral power into the force amplitude via $F_0(t)=\sqrt{2P'_c/(N k)}\,\chi(\mu)\sin(\mu t)$.

What would settle it

A direct experimental check would be to apply a known oscillatory force at the pipette tip—for example, by trapping a small magnetic or optically trapped bead at the nozzle, or by driving the pipette tip with a calibrated piezo—and compare the measured tip-loading frequency response with the model's predicted active-cell curve. If the measured response deviates from the predicted $\chi(\mu)$ by more than the estimated relative error, the reported 23 pN force and the wall-distance enhancement would need revision.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the periodic forcing of a living C. reinhardtii cell's two flagella can be measured directly rather than inferred from flow fields or swimming trajectories. The authors convert sub-pixel pipette deflection spectra into force using a calibrated frequency response, obtaining a dynamic force amplitude of 23±5 pN at 51±6 Hz for cells in bulk medium, and show that this force increases monotonically when the cell approaches a solid interface, becoming significantly enhanced already at distances (about 9–12 µm) beyond the maximal forward reach of the flagella (7–8 µm). They read this distance-dependence as evidence that hydrodynamic interactions, not steric contact, first communicate the wall to the swimming cell. The measured bulk force, combined with a Stokes-drag estimate of the mean propulsion force, implies a peak instantaneous forcing near 31±7 pN, in line with optical-tweezer escape forces; the paper also infers that roughly 39% of the beat cycle carries negative instantaneous force, matching prior kinematic and simulation results.

Load-bearing premise

The measurement relies on the assumption that the frequency response computed for the active-cell boundary condition (force applied at the pipette tip, base stationary) is correct, even though the model is calibrated under a different boundary condition (base oscillated by a piezo, tip free) and is never checked directly under tip loading.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The reported 23±5 pN dynamic force at 51±6 Hz provides a direct in vivo benchmark for flagellar hydrodynamic models, replacing estimates inferred from flow fields.
The observed monotonic increase of measured force for wall distances below about 12 µm, beyond flagellar reach, supports a hydrodynamic-interaction regime that precedes steric contact in surface encounters.
The method reduces the calibration problem of micropipette force sensors to a full frequency-response measurement, enabling piconewton dynamic force readings in fluids at tens of hertz.
Combining the oscillatory force with Stokes-drag mean thrust yields a peak instantaneous force of about 31±7 pN, reconciling the dynamic measurement with optical-tweezer escape forces.

Reading between the lines

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

If the bulk calibration transfer is valid, the same pipette model could be used to extract dynamic flagellar or ciliary forces in other microswimmers by rescaling cantilever geometry and viscosity, provided the beating frequency stays within the calibrated response range.
Near-wall measurements use a bulk-calibrated response; a wall modifies the hydrodynamic drag on the cantilever itself, so part of the apparent force enhancement below about 12 µm could be a sensor artefact unless the model is extended to a wall-bounded fluid. This is a testable alternative reading of the wall-distance data.
Simultaneous bright-field imaging of the flagella and force readout would allow phase-resolved mapping of force within the beat cycle, extending the Gaussian power-spectrum analysis to stroke-resolved mechanics.

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

The headline is that this is the first time-resolved, in vivo force measurement of a beating flagellum, and the 23±5 pN figure is credible but leans on a boundary-condition transfer that is modelled rather than directly calibrated.

What's new: the DMFS extends micropipette force sensors from quasi-static to dynamic, with a full frequency-response calibration protocol and an elasto-hydrodynamic model (Sader-type beam coupled to unsteady Stokes flow). The noise analysis is careful: they verify white noise, subtract the offset via the law of cosines, and validate the piezo calibration in water and TAP, plus a viscosity check. The static spring constant and geometry corrections are tied to independent measurements. They also ship a Mathematica script for the numerical response, which is good practice.

The central result, F0 = 23±5 pN at 51±6 Hz, is internally consistent: the single-cell variation over two hours is larger than the per-measurement error, and the value lines up with optical-tweezer escape forces (26–31 pN) and Stokes-drag estimates (8±2 pN mean propulsion, giving ~31±7 pN max with sinusoidal forcing). That external agreement is the strongest evidence the calibration transfer is not way off.

The soft spot is exactly the one the stress-test note flags: the active-cell frequency response χ_active is computed from the model fitted to piezo-driven, free-tip data. The paper says measuring under the true boundary condition is 'experimentally challenging,' which is honest, but it means the headline error bar (±1.8 pN per measurement) does not include model-transfer error. A 20% error in χ at 50 Hz would shift the force by 20%. This is not fatal—the model is physically plausible and the consistency checks help—but a direct validation, say an oscillating bead or known tip force, would close the gap.

Minor: the wall-distance results (Fig. 4d) are shown without error bars or statistical tests; the 'significantly enhanced' claim at z=9.1 µm would be stronger with a proper test across cells. And the reduction to a single sinusoid throws away waveform shape, but they acknowledge that explicitly.

Who this is for: anyone working on microbial motility, flagellar hydrodynamics, or micromechanical force sensing. It deserves a serious referee; the right referee will probe the calibration transfer and the statistics of the wall data. I'd take the 23 pN as a real measurement, with the caveat that the systematic uncertainty is probably larger than the quoted error.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a dynamic micropipette force sensor (DMFS) to measure the oscillatory forces generated by the beating flagella of Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cells held at the tip of a soft glass micropipette. The deflection of the pipette is recorded optically at 400 fps with sub-pixel resolution; the power spectral density of the deflection signal shows a Gaussian peak at the flagellar beating frequency. An elasto-hydrodynamic beam model, calibrated by piezo-driven base actuation, is used to convert the measured spectral power into a force amplitude via Eq. (16). The authors report a mean oscillatory force amplitude of 23 ± 5 pN at a beating frequency of 51 ± 6 Hz in bulk, and an increase of the measured force upon approaching a solid wall at distances larger than the flagellar reach, which they interpret as hydrodynamic interactions.

Significance. If correct, this work would provide the first direct time-resolved measurement of the oscillatory flagellar forces of a swimming microorganism, with a sensitivity of a few piconewtons, and a calibration protocol extendable to other cell types. The central force value is consistent with independent estimates from optical tweezer escape forces (26–31 pN) and with a Stokes-drag model (31 ± 7 pN maximum forcing). Strengths include the independent static calibration by droplet weight, the amplitude- and viscosity-dependence checks of the dynamic calibration, the explicit white-noise analysis, and the provision of a Mathematica script for the numerical solution. The paper also offers a novel experimental handle on cell–wall hydrodynamic interactions.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Fig. 3, Eq. (16)] The frequency response χ(μ) for the measurement boundary condition—fixed pipette base with the cell force applied at the nozzle—is not measured directly; the text states that such a calibration is 'experimentally challenging.' Instead, χ(μ) is computed from the elasto-hydrodynamic model of Section IV, whose geometry-correction parameters are fitted to calibration data taken under the opposite boundary condition (piezo-driven base, free tip). Because the model fit can absorb errors in the calibration boundary condition without testing the tip-loading response, a systematic error in the modeled transfer (e.g., from the simplified double-L bend or nozzle-drag treatment) would propagate directly into the central force value through Eq. (16). The quoted error of 1.8 pN includes only the mean deviation between calibration data and model, not the uncertainty of the boundary-condition transfer. An independent check, such as applying a known oscillatory force to the nozzle of a base-clamped pipette (e.g., with a trapped microbead or a second actuated pipette), is needed to validate the active-cell response curve.
[Section II.B, Eq. (3) and Section V, Eq. (16)] The normalization of the power spectrum is never defined. Equation (3) defines P'_c as the Gaussian area divided by the frequency bin width Δf, which is dimensionally inconsistent with the subsequent use of P'_c as a squared-deflection measure in Eq. (16): if the PSD is per unit frequency, the area already has units of squared deflection and should not be divided by Δf; if the PSD is computed from the discrete Fourier transform X(k) defined in Eq. (1), the factor relating ∑|X|^2 to the mean-square deflection must be stated. Without these definitions, readers cannot reproduce the 23 pN value, and the units of Eq. (16) are ambiguous. Please specify the exact single-sided PSD normalization and derive Eq. (16) from the discretized Parseval theorem.
[Section V, Fig. 4] The wall-distance measurements rely on the same frequency response function χ, which is calibrated in bulk conditions. The proximity of the wall may alter the hydrodynamic loading on the cantilever and nozzle, yet the model does not include wall effects on the hydrodynamic function Γ(x,ω) in Eq. (12). Since the large enhancement of F0 at small z is a central physical claim, the authors should either estimate the magnitude of wall-induced changes in χ or provide a control experiment, for instance measuring the response of the pipette to a known force at different distances from the wall.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and Section VI] The phrase 'the maximum extend of the beating flagella' should read 'the maximum extension of the beating flagella'.
[Section VIII.C] In the description of the correlation analysis, the text says 'extracting the shift corresponding the the maximum of the interpolation'; the duplicate 'the' should be removed, and 'As sown in Fig. 7a' should be 'As shown in Fig. 7a'.
[Section VI] The word 'customiszed' should be 'customized'.
[Section IV] The expression for the nozzle hydrodynamic function Γ_n(ω) = (Γ*(L,ω) − 1)/2 in Eq. (13) is given without derivation or a supporting reference; a short justification would improve reproducibility.
[Section III] The statement that the error of the active-cell response curve is 'estimated by the mean deviation between the experimental and model calibration data and translated to the active cell case as a relative error' should be quantified; the propagation of that error into F0 via Eq. (16) should be shown explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the cell-force value is not an input to any calibration step; it is obtained only at the final multiplication in Eq. (16).

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained against external calibrations. The measured PSD power P'_c (Eq. 3) is obtained from optical deflection data and a Gaussian fit; the spring constant k is calibrated statically with evaporating droplet weights; the frequency response chi is measured under piezo actuation of the clamped base and modeled with the Sader/Tuck elasto-hydrodynamic beam theory (Eqs. 4-15), with geometry corrections (delta r, delta R, delta L, delta Ln) fitted to those calibration data and constrained by the measured geometry and static spring constant. The active-cell response chi(mu) is then computed from the same model with boundary conditions changed from base oscillation (Eq. 15 with w0 != 0, f = 0) to tip loading (Eq. 13 with f != 0, w0 = 0). The cell force enters only at the final conversion, F0(t) = sqrt(2 P'_c/(N k)) chi(mu) sin(mu t) (Eq. 16). No equation uses the reported 23 +/- 5 pN or 51 +/- 6 Hz to determine k, chi, or the fitted model parameters. The paper explicitly notes that calibrating under the measurement boundary condition is 'experimentally challenging' and therefore uses the model to transfer the calibration; this is an honest validation gap, not a circular reduction, because chi_active is not defined from the cell-force signal. The near-wall results are normalized by the same sensor's bulk values, which is a deliberate ratio and not a separate prediction. Self-citations [30,32,33] support fabrication, light-switchable adhesion, and cell-handling protocols only; they do not supply the force result or any uniqueness theorem. External anchors (literature beating frequency, optical-tweezer escape forces, and measured frequency-response scaling with viscosity and amplitude) provide independent checks. Thus the central claim is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard beam and fluid mechanics, plus two domain assumptions: the bent pipette can be modeled as a straight tapered beam, and the nozzle's axial drag can be treated as a concentrated load. The only fitted parameters are additive geometry corrections used to match the calibration resonance; they are constrained to measurement uncertainty. The sinusoidal reconstruction of the force is an analysis assumption explicitly acknowledged in the paper.

free parameters (2)

Additive geometry corrections δr, δR, δL, δLn = not stated explicitly (reported below 1 µm for radii, ~10 µm for lengths)
Section IV: fitted to the piezo calibration resonance curves; constrained within measurement uncertainty and to match the static spring constant. These corrections set the model's frequency response, which enters the force calibration through χ(μ).
Gaussian PSD fit parameters (amplitude a, standard deviation σ, mean μ, offset d) = varies per measurement; e.g., μ ~ 50 Hz, σ ~ 1-3 Hz
Section IIB: fitted to the power spectrum peak (Eq. 2); the signal power P'_c = sqrt(2π)σa/Δf (Eq. 3) directly determines the force amplitude in Eq. (16). These are empirical descriptors, not theory constraints, but they set the reported force.

assumptions (7)

standard math Euler-Bernoulli (Kirchhoff) beam theory for a tapered hollow elastic beam at small deflections.
Used in Eq. (4) of Section IV to relate pipette deflection to loading; standard for slender beams.
domain assumption The fluid is an incompressible Newtonian liquid at low Reynolds number, described by the time-dependent Stokes equation with no-slip at the pipette surface and quiescent far field.
Section IV, Eq. (8); Re ~ 0.2 justifies omitting the nonlinear inertial term.
domain assumption The double-L bent pipette can be approximated as a straight, slowly tapering beam oscillating normal to its long axis.
Section IV opening: 'we simplify the pipette geometry, treating the cantilever part as a straight, tapered beam'; the bend is not modeled.
domain assumption The nozzle is a long, thin cylinder oscillating axially, with a hydrodynamic function Γ_n(ω) = (Γ*(L,ω) - 1)/2, and its loading is concentrated at the cantilever tip.
Section IV, Eq. (13) and preceding sentences; references Tuck (1969) for the axial Stokes problem.
domain assumption The frequency response for the active-cell boundary condition (tip loading, clamped base) is correctly predicted by the model after fitting geometry corrections to the piezo-calibration data.
Section III, final paragraph, and Fig. 3b: the model is fitted to the piezo-actuated calibration, then used to compute the solid line for the active cell.
domain assumption The flagellar forcing can be represented as a single sinusoid at the mean beat frequency with Gaussian frequency jitter, and the measured power at that frequency is the fundamental component.
Section IIB, Eq. (16) and discussion: phase is lost, so the force is reconstructed as a sinusoid; the paper explicitly acknowledges this.
domain assumption Background noise is white and uncorrelated, so it appears as a constant offset in the power spectrum and can be subtracted.
Appendix D and Eqs. (17)-(18); verified experimentally for the specific pipette and frequency range, but assumed to hold for all recordings.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Force Measurements on Swimming Chlamydomonas Cells using Micropipette Force Sensors." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7UUBR4OM

@misc{pith2026190803602,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Force Measurements on Swimming Chlamydomonas Cells using Micropipette Force Sensors},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7UUBR4OM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.03602}
}

abstract

Flagella and cilia are cellular appendages that inherit essential functions of microbial life including sensing and navigating the environment. In order to propel a swimming microorganism they displace the surrounding fluid by means of periodic motions, while precisely-timed modulations of their beating patterns enable the cell to steer towards or away from specific locations. Characterizing the dynamic forces, however, is challenging and typically relies on indirect experimental approaches. Here, we present direct in vivo measurements of the dynamic forces of motile Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cells in controlled environments. The experiments are based on partially aspirating a living microorganism at the tip of a micropipette force sensor and optically recording the micropipette's position fluctuations with high temporal and sub-pixel spatial resolution. We provide an analytic elasto-hydrodynamic model for the micropipette force sensor and describe how to obtain the micropipette's full frequency response function from a dynamic force calibration. Using this approach, we find dynamic forces during the free swimming activity of individual Chlamydomonas reinhardtii cells of 23$\pm$5 pN resulting from the coordinated flagellar beating with a frequency of 51$\pm$6 Hz. In addition to measurements in bulk liquid environment, we study the dynamic forces of the biflagellated microswimmer in the vicinity of a solid/liquid interface. As we gradually decrease the distance of the swimming microbe to the interface, we measure a significantly enhanced force transduction at distances larger than the maximum extend of the beating flagella, highlighting the importance of hydrodynamic interactions for scenarios in which flagellated microorganisms encounter surfaces.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 43 canonical work pages

[1]

Purcell, E. M. Life at low Reynolds number. American Journal of Physics 45, 3–11 (1977)

work page 1977
[2]

Bacterial behaviour

Berg, H.C. Bacterial behaviour. Nature 254, 389–392 (1975)

work page 1975
[3]

Lauga, E., Powers, T. R. The hydrodynamics of swim- ming microorganisms. Rep. Prog. Phys. 72, 096601 (2009)

work page 2009
[4]

C., Brown, D

Berg, H. C., Brown, D. A. Chemotaxis in Escherichia coli analysed by Three-dimensional Tracking. Nature 239, 500–504 (1972)

work page 1972
[5]

G., Barbai, N

Alon, U., Surette, M. G., Barbai, N. Leibler, S. Ro- bustness in bacterial chemotaxis. Nature 397, 168–171 (1999)

work page 1999
[6]

Foster, K. W. et al. A rhodopsin is the functional pho- toreceptor for phototaxis in the unicellular eukaryote Chlamydomonas. Nature 311, 756–759 (1984)

work page 1984
[7]

Rheotaxis Guides Mammalian Sperm

Miki, K., Clapham, D.E. Rheotaxis Guides Mammalian Sperm. Current Biology 23, 443–452 (2013)

work page 2013
[8]

Krieg, M. et al. Atomic force microscopy-based mechanobiology. Nature Reviews Physics 1, 41–57 (2019)

work page 2019

Show all 43 references

[9]

Alsteens, D. et al. Atomic force microscopy-based char- acterization and design of biointerfaces. Nature Reviews Materials 2, 1–16 (2017)

2017
[10]

M., Yamane, T

Ashkin, A., Dziedzic, J. M., Yamane, T. Optical trap- ping and manipulation of single cells using infrared laser beams. Nature 330, 769–771 (1987)

1987
[11]

Min, T. L. et al. High-resolution, long-term character iza- tion of bacterial motility using optical tweezers. Nature Methods 6, 831–835 (2009)

2009
[12]

Stellamanns, E. et al. Optical trapping reveals propul - sion forces, power generation and motility eﬃciency of the unicellular parasites Trypanosoma brucei brucei. Sci- entiﬁc Reports 4, 6515 (2014)

2014
[13]

& Nultsch W

R¨ uﬀer, U. & Nultsch W. High-speed cinematographic analysis of the movement of chlamydomonas. Cell Motil- ity 5, 251–263 (1985)

1985
[14]

& Kamiya, R

Minoura, I. & Kamiya, R. Strikingly diﬀerent propulsiv e forces generated by diﬀerent dynein-deﬁcient mutants in viscous media. Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton 31, 130–139 (1995)

1995
[15]

P., Goldstei n, R

Polin, M., Tuval I., Drescher K., Gollub J. P., Goldstei n, R. E. Chlamydomonas swims with two “gears” in a eu- karyotic version of run-and-tumble locomotion. Science 325, 487–490 (2009)

2009
[16]

S., Johnson, K

Guasto, J. S., Johnson, K. A., Gollub, J. P. Oscillatory Flows Induced by Microorganisms Swimming in Two Di- mensions. Physical Review Letters 105, 168102 (2010)

2010
[17]

Ostapenko, T. et al. Curvature-guided motility of mi- croalgae in geometric conﬁnement. Physical Review Let- ters 120, 068002 (2018)

2018
[18]

R., Wan, K

Brumley, D. R., Wan, K. Y., Polin, M., Goldstein, R. E. Flagellar synchronization through direct hydrodynamic interactions. eLife 3, 02750 (2014)

2014
[19]

E., Michel, N., Polin, M., Tuval, I

Drescher, K., Goldstein, R. E., Michel, N., Polin, M., Tuval, I. Direct measurement of the ﬂow ﬁeld around swimming microorganisms. Physical Review Letters 105, 168101 (2010)

2010
[20]

& Nultsch, W

R¨ uﬀer, U. & Nultsch, W. Comparison of the beating of cis- and trans-ﬂagella of Chlamydomonas cells held on micropipettes. Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton 7, 87– 93 (1987)

1987
[21]

Bayly, P. et al. Propulsive forces on the ﬂagellum durin g locomotion of chlamydomonas reinhardtii . Biophysical Journal 100, 2716–2725 (2011)

2011
[22]

E., Polin, M., Tuval, I

Goldstein, R. E., Polin, M., Tuval, I. Noise and synchro - nization in pairs of beating eukaryotic ﬂagella. Physical Review Letters 103, 168103 (2009)

2009
[23]

Wan, K. Y. & Goldstein R. E. Rhythmicity, recurrence, and recovery of ﬂagellar beating. Physical Review Letters 113, 238103 (2014)

2014
[24]

Y., Leptos, K

Wan, K. Y., Leptos, K. C., Goldstein, R. E. Lag, lock, sync, slip: the many ’phases’ of coupled ﬂagella. Journal of The Royal Society Interface 11, 20131160 (2014)

2014
[25]

E., Brokaw, C

Johnson, R. E., Brokaw, C. J. Flagellar hydrodynamics. A comparison between resistive-force theory and slender- body theory. Biophysical Journal 25, 113-127 (1979)

1979
[26]

P., Yukich, J

McCord, R. P., Yukich, J. N., Bernd, K. K. Analysis of force generation during ﬂagellar assembly through optical trapping of free-swimming Chlamydomonas reinhardtii . Cell Motility and the Cytoskeleton 61, 137–144 (2005)

2005
[27]

Wan, K. Y. Coordination of eukaryotic cilia and ﬂagella . Essays in Biochemistry 62, 829–838 (2018)

2018
[28]

Kantsler, V., Dunkel, J., Polin, M., Goldstein, R. E. Ci l- iary contact interactions dominate surface scattering of swimming eukaryotes. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sciences USA 110, 1187–1192 (2013)

2013
[29]

Microalgae Scatter oﬀ Solid Surfaces by Hydrodynamic and Contact Forces

Contino, M., Lushi, E., Tuval, I., Kantsler, V., Polin, M. Microalgae Scatter oﬀ Solid Surfaces by Hydrodynamic and Contact Forces. Physical Review Letters 115, 258102 (2015)

2015
[30]

& B¨ aumchen, O

Kreis, C.T., Le Blay, M., Linne, C., Makowski, M.M. & B¨ aumchen, O. Adhesion of Chlamydomonas microalgae to surfaces is switchable by light. Nature Physics 14, 45–49 (2018)

2018
[31]

A modular approach for multifunctiona l polymersomes with controlled adhesive properties

Petit, J., et al. A modular approach for multifunctiona l polymersomes with controlled adhesive properties. Soft Matter 14, 894 (2018)

2018
[32]

& B¨ aumchen, O

Backholm, M. & B¨ aumchen, O. Micropipette force sen- sors for in vivo force measurements on single cells and multicellular microorganisms. Nature Protocols 14, 594– 615 (2019)

2019
[33]

& B¨ aumchen, O

Kreis, C.T., Grangier, A. & B¨ aumchen, O. In vivo ad- hesion force measurements of Chlamydomonas on model substrates Soft Matter 15, 3027-3035 (2019)

2019
[34]

J., Raegen, A

Colbert, M. J., Raegen, A. N., Fradin, C., Dalnoki- Veress, K. Adhesion and membrane tension of single vesicles and living cells using a micropipette-based tech- nique. The European Physical Journal E 30, 117-121 (2009)

2009
[35]

J., Brochard-Wyart, F., Fradin, C., Dalnok i- Veress, K

Colbert, M. J., Brochard-Wyart, F., Fradin, C., Dalnok i- Veress, K. Squeezing and detachment of living cells. Bio- physical Journal 99, 3555–3562 (2010)

2010
[36]

S., Dalnoki-Veress, K

Backholm, M., Ryu, W. S., Dalnoki-Veress, K. Viscoelas - tic properties of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans, a self-similar, shear-thinning worm Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences of the United States of Amer- ica 110, 4528–4533 (2013)

2013
[37]

D., Backholm, M., Ryu, W

Schulman, R. D., Backholm, M., Ryu, W. S., Dalnoki- Veress, K. Dynamic force patterns of an undulatory mi- croswimmer. Physical Review E 89, 050701 (2014)

2014
[38]

D., Backholm, M., Ryu, W

Schulman, R. D., Backholm, M., Ryu, W. S., Dalnoki- 12 Veress, K. Undulatory microswimming near solid bound- aries. Phys. Fluids 26, 101902 (2014)

2014
[39]

Backholm, M., Kasper, A. K. S., Schulman, R. D., Ryu, W. S., Dalnoki-Veress, K. The eﬀects of viscosity on the undulatory swimming dynamics of C. elegans. Phys. Fluids 27, 091901 (2015)

2015
[40]

Sader, J. E. Frequency response of cantilever beams im- mersed in viscous ﬂuids with applications to the atomic force microscope. Journal of Applied Physics 84, 64–76 (1998)

1998
[41]

F., J¨ ulicher, F., Howard, J., Friedrich, B

Geyer, V. F., J¨ ulicher, F., Howard, J., Friedrich, B. M . Cell-body rocking is a dominant mechanism for ﬂagellar synchronization in a swimming alga. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 18058 (2013)

2013
[42]

Williams, R. E. & Hussey, R. G. Oscillating Cylinders and the Stokes’ Paradox. Physics of Fluids 15, 2083 (1972)

1972
[43]

Tuck, E. O. Calculation of Unsteady Flows Due to Small Motions of Cylinders in a Viscous Fluid. Journal of En- gineering Mathematics 3, 1 (1969)

1969

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

Purcell, E. M. Life at low Reynolds number. American Journal of Physics 45, 3–11 (1977)

work page 1977

[2] [2]

Bacterial behaviour

Berg, H.C. Bacterial behaviour. Nature 254, 389–392 (1975)

work page 1975

[3] [3]

Lauga, E., Powers, T. R. The hydrodynamics of swim- ming microorganisms. Rep. Prog. Phys. 72, 096601 (2009)

work page 2009

[4] [4]

C., Brown, D

Berg, H. C., Brown, D. A. Chemotaxis in Escherichia coli analysed by Three-dimensional Tracking. Nature 239, 500–504 (1972)

work page 1972

[5] [5]

G., Barbai, N

Alon, U., Surette, M. G., Barbai, N. Leibler, S. Ro- bustness in bacterial chemotaxis. Nature 397, 168–171 (1999)

work page 1999

[6] [6]

Foster, K. W. et al. A rhodopsin is the functional pho- toreceptor for phototaxis in the unicellular eukaryote Chlamydomonas. Nature 311, 756–759 (1984)

work page 1984

[7] [7]

Rheotaxis Guides Mammalian Sperm

Miki, K., Clapham, D.E. Rheotaxis Guides Mammalian Sperm. Current Biology 23, 443–452 (2013)

work page 2013

[8] [8]

Krieg, M. et al. Atomic force microscopy-based mechanobiology. Nature Reviews Physics 1, 41–57 (2019)

work page 2019