Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 65 references

Migration and accumulation of bacteria with chemotaxis and chemokinesis

T0 review · 1 major / 4 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 Chemokinesis combined with chemotaxis can split a bacterial population in a fixed gradient, broaden its traveling wave, and reduce the navigation bias from a decaying attractant source.

desk verdict A useful continuum model for chemotaxis-chemokinesis with a factor-2 error in the drift that shifts a headline threshold but leaves the qualitative conclusions intact. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05050 v2 pith:AJBPUZZW submitted 2019-08-14 physics.bio-ph

Theresa Jakuszeit , James Lindsey-Jones , François J. Peaudecerf , Ottavio A. Croze This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords bacterialchemotaxischemokinesisrun-and-tumblemotilityKeller-Segelmodelpopulationdynamicstravelingwavestransientnutrientgradientsmicrofluidicassays
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 extends the standard continuum model of run-and-tumble bacterial migration to include chemokinesis, the speed-up of swimming in higher attractant concentrations. It argues that the combination of chemotaxis and chemokinesis changes population behaviour qualitatively, not just quantitatively: in a fixed gradient part of the population can drift toward low attractant, in a self-generated gradient the travelling band broadens, and around a decaying nutrient pulse the migration is faster and less biased by the pulse's decay. These predictions matter because many soil and marine bacteria display chemokinesis, and the extra drift could explain why some species lack the sharp bands seen in Escherichia coli. If correct, chemokinesis is not a small correction to chemotaxis but a competing migration mechanism that can dominate under steep speed responses.

What carries the argument

The central object is the bacterial flux $$J = -D \partial b/\partial x + V_k b + V_\chi b,$$ where the diffusion coefficient $D = v^2/(2\alpha)$ depends on the local swimming speed $v$, the chemokinetic drift $V_k = -(v/\alpha)\partial v/\partial x$ points down the speed gradient, and the chemotactic drift $V_\chi = \chi(\nabla f_\chi + (1/v)\partial_t f_\chi)$ points up the attractant gradient. Here $\chi(x) = \chi_0 v(x)^2/v_0^2$, so faster swimming raises chemotactic sensitivity, and the speed obeys $v(x)=v_0 + v_c c^n/(c^n+k_c^n)$. The competition between $V_k$ and $V_\chi$ carries the argument: when the Hill coefficient $n$ exceeds a threshold set by Eq. (15), chemokinetic drift dominates at $c=k_c$ and the population can accumulate at low attractant instead of high.

What would settle it

Measure $v(c)$ for a chemokinetic bacterium while holding the gradient fixed, then run the model with the measured function: if a two-front split appears in a fixed linear gradient for a Hill coefficient below the threshold in Eq. (15), or if no split appears for a coefficient above it, the central drift-competition claim is falsified. A separate check is to observe whether the traveling-wave broadening disappears when the speed response is shallow, since the model predicts broadening only when the speed gradient is significant over the band.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that for a population combining chemotaxis and positive chemokinesis, the total bacterial flux decomposes into contributions from diffusion, a chemokinetic drift, and a chemotactic drift, and the chemokinetic term can qualitatively reshape the accumulation. In a fixed linear gradient, the model's criterion for chemokinetic drift to dominate is $n > 4\delta_0\omega K_\chi/(\omega+K_\chi)^2(1/\eta+1/2)$ evaluated at $C=\omega$; when met, part of the population is carried toward low attractant instead of continuing up-gradient. In a self-generated gradient, the travelling wave of a chemotactic-chemokinetic population is faster but broader than the pure chemotactic wave, and the pulse travels slower than a uniformly fast-swimming population because front speed scales with pulse amplitude. Around a transient diffusing source, chemokinesis leads to faster, stronger accumulation and reduces the bias caused by the attractant's decay, because the temporal term in the chemotactic drift is weighted by $1/v$.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest load-bearing premise is the assumed functional form of the chemokinetic response, $v(c)=v_0+v_c c^n/(c^n+k_c^n)$ with instantaneous adaptation: the pure chemokinetic speed increase as a function of attractant concentration has never been systematically measured for any species, and if the true response is non-monotonic, much shallower, or has a very different half-saturation, the predicted split, band broadening, and bias reduction would weaken or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In fixed microfluidic gradients, a steep enough chemokinetic response (large $n$) should be observable as a temporary or persistent split, with a subpopulation trapped near the half-saturation concentration rather than at the source.
  • In agar plate assays, chemokinetic species should show broad, less sharply peaked rings rather than the sharp Adler bands, and their population should grow faster in the same nutrient budget.
  • Around a decaying nutrient pulse, chemotaxis-chemokinesis should accumulate a larger fraction of cells at the source than pure chemotaxis, and the prediction should be insensitive to whether the temporal term in the drift is included.
  • When the chemokinetic response is very steep (step-like), chemokinesis can inhibit rather than help chemotaxis, so the relation between speed response steepness and accumulation is non-monotonic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the measured speed-vs-attractant curve for a species is steeper than the threshold, Eq. (15) becomes a testable diagnostic: species with steep responses should show the split, species with shallow responses should not, regardless of absolute speed increase.
  • The model's assumption of instantaneous speed adaptation sets a lower bound on the effect; real adaptation delays of order 10–200 s would likely smear the split and further broaden the wave, so transient measurements could discriminate.
  • The same flux decomposition applies to synthetic chemokinetic swimmers whose speed rises with fuel concentration, so the predicted low-fuel accumulation should be reproducible with Janus particles in a fuel gradient.
  • The metabolic-cost discussion implies that chemokinesis concentrates swimming expenditure just where nutrients are available, which is a plausible evolutionary reason for the behavior even when it slows the band's leading edge.
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.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the Keller-Segel model to describe bacterial populations that combine chemotaxis with chemokinesis, i.e., a swimming speed that depends on local attractant concentration. The model is derived from run-and-tumble dynamics and yields a drift-diffusion flux with a concentration-dependent diffusion coefficient, a chemokinetic drift directed down speed gradients, and a chemotactic drift whose sensitivity grows with the square of the swimming speed. The authors apply the model to three scenarios: a fixed linear attractant gradient, a self-generated gradient on an agar plate, and a transient diffusing source. They report that chemokinesis can split the population in a fixed gradient, broaden a traveling wave, and reduce the navigation bias caused by a decaying attractant source. The paper includes analytical threshold conditions and numerical solutions, with code and data deposited on Zenodo.

Significance. The paper addresses a relatively underexplored aspect of bacterial motility and provides a transparent continuum framework that connects microscopic parameters (swimming speed, tumble rate) to macroscopic chemotactic sensitivity. The explicit inclusion of temporal-gradient effects following Hein et al. and the treatment of speed-dependent diffusion and chemotactic sensitivity are useful contributions. The quantitative predictions are falsifiable with existing microfluidic and agar-plate assays, and the authors are honest about the lack of measured chemokinetic response functions. The availability of code and data strengthens reproducibility. However, a factor-2 error in the chemokinetic drift and diffusion terms changes the key threshold condition and undermines the illustrative demonstration of the population split, so the results cannot be accepted in their current form.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. IIB, Eq. (9); Appendix B; Sec. IV] The qualitative predictions depend on the assumed Hill-type chemokinetic response function v(c) = v0 + vc c^n/(c^n + kc^n) (Eq. 9), whose parameters η, ω, and n are not measured but are estimated only loosely from literature values (Appendix B gives n ≈ 1–3 from refs. [5,13]). After correcting the flux factor error, the threshold for the population split becomes n ≳ 80 for the parameters used in Fig. 4, which is far above the cited empirical estimates. This raises the question of whether the predicted split is a realistic biological phenomenon or an artifact of an extreme parameter choice that was not flagged as such in the abstract. The authors should provide a more systematic robustness analysis (e.g., non-monotonic or much shallower response functions, and different relative values of ω and Kχ) or explicitly present the split as a high-steepness limiting case. The Discussion acknowledges the missing measurements, but the central claims would be considerably strengthened by making the sensitivity to the assumed response function more explicit and by testing the predictions against alternative functional forms.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix A, Eq. (A14)] The angle brackets used in the definition of I2(t) appear to denote path averaging, but the notation is not defined here and the placement of the brackets is ambiguous; please clarify by adding an explicit definition and consistent notation.
  2. [Sec. IIC and Appendix B] The main text states that parameters were chosen 'to best illustrate the chemokinetic effect' and Appendix B notes that η=2 is 'an extreme value'. Please state this explicitly in the main text where Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 are discussed, so that readers do not interpret the chosen parameters as representative of real bacteria.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. IIIC] The phrase 'measuring bias' in the abstract is unclear; consider 'navigation bias' or 'measurement bias' to convey that the temporal change in the attractant gradient reduces the accuracy of chemotactic navigation.
  4. [Sec. IIIB, Fig. 5 and S2] The text refers to Fig. S2 for the comparison of chemotactic populations at constant speed, but the main-text relevant figure is Fig. 5; please ensure the cross-references are consistent and that the reader can follow which results are in the main text versus the supplementary material.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the chemokinesis-chemotaxis model is derived from run-and-tumble dynamics with an explicitly assumed Hill response, and its predictions are conditional model outputs rather than restatements of fitted inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The macroscopic flux (Eqs. 1-4) is obtained from a microscopic run-and-tumble description following published independent derivations (Schnitzer; Othmer and Hillen; de Gennes), and the chemotactic sensitivity relation (Eqs. 7-8) is derived in Appendix A rather than assumed. The only chemokinesis-specific input is the Hill form v(x)=v0+vc c^n/(c^n+kc^n) (Eq. 9), which the paper explicitly labels as an assumption because 'the pure chemokinetic speed increase as a function of attractant concentration has not been systematically measured.' This is an unmeasured modeling input, not a parameter fitted to the outputs being predicted. The chemokinetic drift Vk=-(v/alpha) dv/dx is a mathematical consequence of a position-dependent speed and of the assumed monotonic increase of v with c; the threshold condition (15) is derived by comparing the two drift terms, not chosen to reproduce the two-subpopulation split. The steady-state formula (17) follows by direct integration of the zero-flux equation. Self-citations (Croze et al. 2011 for parameters; de Gennes 2004 for the kernel method) are ordinary external methodological and parametric support and are not used as uniqueness arguments or to forbid alternative responses. The paper explicitly flags its missing empirical support for v(c) and presents the qualitative effects across parameter sweeps (n, eta, omega) in the text and supplement, so the conclusions are conditional on transparent assumptions rather than forced by the assumptions by construction. A separate internal factor-of-two inconsistency between Eqs. (2)-(3) and the non-dimensionalisation in Eq. (10c) is a quantitative correctness concern that changes the threshold (15) and Fig. 4, but it is not a circularity.

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

The central predictions depend on the assumed Hill chemokinetic response function and its hand-chosen parameters (eta, omega, n), plus standard run-and-tumble simplifications. No new physical entities are introduced. The model parameters from prior literature (Kchi, N, H, KS) are used as inputs, not fitted.

free parameters (5)
  • eta (vc/v0) = 2 (Figs. 3,4,S3), 0.5 (Fig. S2)
    Maximum fractional speed increase due to chemokinesis. Chosen to illustrate the effect, not measured; values span reported ranges.
  • omega (kc/c0) = 0.2 or 0.5
    Half-saturation concentration of the Hill chemokinetic response. Estimated visually from sparse literature data; not fitted.
  • n (Hill coefficient) = 1, 5, 10, 40
    Steepness of the chemokinetic response. Estimated between 1 and 3 from visual inspection; larger values used to approximate step responses.
  • delta0 (chi0/D0b) = 50 or 105
    Non-dimensional chemotactic sensitivity. Chosen to illustrate; varies between scenarios.
  • S (pulse strength) = 0.5
    Amount of chemoeffector in the transient source initial condition; chosen for the transient-source scenario.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Bacterial run-and-tumble motion is a two-state 1D process with tumble rate alpha_R+alpha_L=2alpha and no directional persistence.
    Used to derive the flux Eqs. (1)-(4); neglects run-reverse-flick and speed-dependent reorientation.
  • domain assumption The chemotactic memory kernel perfectly adapts and the response is small (Delta << 1).
    Invoked in Appendix A to linearize the tumble rate and evaluate mean run durations.
  • domain assumption Swimming speed is constant during a run and adapts instantaneously to local attractant concentration.
    Stated in Sec. II B; adaptation times can be 10-200 s for real species.
  • ad hoc to paper The chemokinetic response follows a Hill function v(c)=v0+vc c^n/(c^n+kc^n).
    Eq. (9); no direct measurements exist, so the form and parameters are assumed.
  • domain assumption Attractant profiles in the three scenarios are idealized (linear, self-generated Gaussian, diffusing pulse).
    Used in Sec. III to represent microfluidic, agar plate, and transient-source experiments.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Migration and accumulation of bacteria with chemotaxis and chemokinesis." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AJBPUZZW

@misc{pith2026190805050,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Migration and accumulation of bacteria with chemotaxis and chemokinesis},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AJBPUZZW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05050}
}
read the original abstract

Bacteria can chemotactically migrate up attractant gradients by controlling run-and-tumble motility patterns. In addition to this well-known chemotactic behaviour, several soil and marine bacterial species perform chemokinesis: they adjust their swimming speed according to the local concentration of chemoeffector, with higher speed at higher concentration. A field of attractant then induces a spatially varying swimming speed, which results in a drift towards lower attractant concentrations -- contrary to the drift created by chemotaxis. Here, to explore the biological benefits of chemokinesis and investigate its impact on the chemotactic response, we extend a Keller-Segel-type model to include chemokinesis. We apply the model to predict the dynamics of bacterial populations capable of chemokinesis and chemotaxis in chemoeffector fields inspired by microfluidic and agar plate migration assays. We find that chemokinesis combined with chemotaxis not only may enhance the population response with respect to pure chemotaxis, but also modifies it qualitatively. We conclude presenting predictions for bacteria around dynamic finite-size nutrient sources, simulating, e.g., a marine particle or a root. We show that chemokinesis can reduce the measuring bias that is created by a decaying attractant gradient.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05050 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Chemotaxis vs. chemokinesis: (a) Chemotaxis [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Chemokinetic response function. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Chemokinesis in steady linear attractant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Effect of Hill parameter on chemokinesis in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Population growth. The size of the populations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Time evolution of the bacterial response to a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Accumulation at a transient source. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    is coupled to a chemoattractant density field c via the 3 chemotactic drift speed, given by Eq. ( 4). In the stan- dard Keller-Segel model it is phenomenologically asserted that this chemotactic drift speed is proportional to the change in the chemical attractant in space, Vχ = χ ∇fχ , where χ is the chemotactic sensitivity parameter and fχ is a function o...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Berg HC. E. coli in motion. Springer; 2004

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    0 3, 4 -

    5 S2, S3, 8 [29] N 0. 0 3, 4 -

    work page

  4. [4]

    Marine bacterial organisation around point-like sources of amino acids

    Barbara GM, Mitchell JG. Marine bacterial organisation around point-like sources of amino acids. FEMS Micro- biology Ecology. 2003;43(1):99–109

    work page 2003

  5. [5]

    A bacterial pathogen uses dimethyl- sulfoniopropionate as a cue to target heat-stressed corals

    Garren M, Son K, Raina JB, Rusconi R, Menolascina F, Shapiro OH, et al. A bacterial pathogen uses dimethyl- sulfoniopropionate as a cue to target heat-stressed corals . ISME J. 2014;8(5):999–1007

    work page 2014

  6. [6]

    Thus, there is a subpopulation driven to small attractant concentrations by chemokinesis

    is ful- filled, the chemokinetic drift is larger than the chemotac- tic drift. Thus, there is a subpopulation driven to small attractant concentrations by chemokinesis. The effect of varying the Hill parameter n in Eq. (

    work page

  7. [7]

    Control of speed modulation (chemokinesis) in the unidirectional rotary motor of Sinorhizobium meliloti

    Attmannspacher U, Scharf B, Schmitt R. Control of speed modulation (chemokinesis) in the unidirectional rotary motor of Sinorhizobium meliloti. Molecular mi- crobiology. 2005;56(3):708–718

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    2, n = 1, S = 0

    164 · 10−3, η = 2 (η = 0 if no CK), ω = 0. 2, n = 1, S = 0. 5; no bacterial growth. If Vχ includes the effect of transient source, ζ = 8. 164 · 10−3, otherwise ζ = 0. IV. DISCUSSION Chemokinesis is a known response for many environ- mentally relevant bacteria, yet its consequences for bac- terial population dynamics have been little explored. In this work,...

    work page

Show all 65 references
  1. [9]

    Note that upon setting n = 1 , one recovers a Michaelis-Menten type response; for n → ∞, Eq

    have the same half-saturation constant. Note that upon setting n = 1 , one recovers a Michaelis-Menten type response; for n → ∞, Eq. ( 9) ap- proaches a step function, which has been used previously to approximate the chemokinetic response [5, 15]. Finally, in situations where...

  2. [10]

    We rescale the attractant and bacterial densities by their respective initial densities , c0 and b0

    is non- dimensionalised using the characteristic time and length scales t0 = k−1 g and x0 = √ t0D0 b , where the bacterial diffusivity is D0 b = v2 0α −1. We rescale the attractant and bacterial densities by their respective initial densities , c0 and b0. The system of PDEs in ...

  3. [11]

    includes the effect of growth and consumption as well as chemotaxis and chemokine- sis. Thus, any change in the spatial distribution of the bacterial population due to chemotaxis and chemokine- sis will feed back onto the attractant distribution due to consumption by the bacter...

  4. [12]

    is illustrated in Fig. 4. For the parameters chosen in Figure 3, condition (15) is met for n > 39. 78. In experiments, this would re- quire observing the transient bacterial concentration pro - files in addition to the commonly reported steady-state profiles. As the attractant c...

  5. [13]

    Thus, the increase in chemotactic sen- sitivity χ (see Eq

    represents the chemotactic contri- bution to the steady state, which does not depend on the swimming speed. Thus, the increase in chemotactic sen- sitivity χ (see Eq. ( 8)) must be balanced by the increase in diffusivity at steady state in a fixed chemical gradient. However, che...

  6. [14]

    5, n = 5, T = 1, 8

    5, ω = 0. 5, n = 5, T = 1, 8. 8, 16. 4 tially uniformly distributed in a 2D axisymmetric setting. This set-up is reminiscent of the classical agar plate ex- periments, in which bacteria are inoculated in the centre of a nutrient agar plate, see e.g. [29, 34]. While growing and...

  7. [15]

    Conversely, if η < 0 (i.e

    is always met at the threshold concentration C∗ = ω since n → ∞ . Conversely, if η < 0 (i.e. modelling a negative chemokinetic response), condition ( 15) will never be met as the chemotactic and chemokinetic drift have the same direction (chemokinesis in this case is stabilisi...

  8. [16]

    01X, while the bacteria are uniformly distributed B(X, 0) = 1 . 0. For the self-generated gradient (Fig. S2 and Fig. 6) we assume a Gaussian bacterial inoculum, B(R, 0) = exp( −R2/σ 2), with a corresponding attrac- tant distribution, C(R, 0) = 1 − exp(−R2/σ 2) [29]. Fi- nally,...

  9. [17]

    The exponen- tial term in Eq

    reduces to the chemotactic steady-state solution. The exponen- tial term in Eq. (

  10. [18]

    0 3, 4, S3 -

    5 S2 - η 2. 0 3, 4, S3 -

  11. [19]

    0 3, 4,S2 -

    5 S2 [5] n 1 4, S3 - 5 3, 4,S2 - 10 4 - 40 4 - ζ 0. 0 3, 4,S2 -

  12. [20]

    0 3, 4,S2, S3 [29] Kχ 0

    164·10− 3 S3 [29] KS 1. 0 3, 4,S2, S3 [29] Kχ 0. 53 3, 4,S2, S3 [29] S 0. 5 S3 8 Upon (visual) inspection of results, half-saturation con- stants may be about 0. 1mM of glucose and 0. 1mM of ac- etate for E.coli [13] and R. sphaeroides [12], respectively. In [5], the half maxi...

  13. [21]

    Random walks in biology

    Berg HC. Random walks in biology. Princeton University Press; 1993

    1993

  14. [22]

    Overview of Mathematical Approaches Used to Model Bacterial Chemotaxis II: Bacterial Populations

    Tindall MJ, Maini PK, Porter SL, Armitage JP. Overview of Mathematical Approaches Used to Model Bacterial Chemotaxis II: Bacterial Populations. B Math Biol. 2008;70:1570–1607

    2008

  15. [23]

    Bacterial chemotaxis: Rhodobacter sphaeroides and Sinorhizobium meliloti - variations on a theme? Microbiology

    Armitage JP, Schmitt R. Bacterial chemotaxis: Rhodobacter sphaeroides and Sinorhizobium meliloti - variations on a theme? Microbiology. 1997;143:3671– 3682

    1997

  16. [24]

    Bacteria can exploit a flagellar buckling instability to change direction

    Son K, Guasto JS, Stocker R. Bacteria can exploit a flagellar buckling instability to change direction. Nature Phys. 2013;9(8):494–498

    2013

  17. [25]

    Functional analysis of nine putative chemoreceptor proteins in Sinorhizobium meliloti

    Meier VM, Muschler P, Scharf BE. Functional analysis of nine putative chemoreceptor proteins in Sinorhizobium meliloti. J Bacteriol. 2007;189(5):1816–1826

    2007

  18. [26]

    Different roles of CheY1 and CheY2 in the chemotaxis of Rhizobium meliloti

    Sourjik V, Schmitt R. Different roles of CheY1 and CheY2 in the chemotaxis of Rhizobium meliloti. Molec- ular microbiology. 1996;22(3):427–436

    1996

  19. [27]

    Motility, chemokinesis, and methylation-independent chemotaxis in Azospirillum brasilense

    Zhulin IB, Armitage JP. Motility, chemokinesis, and methylation-independent chemotaxis in Azospirillum brasilense. J Bacteriol. 1993;175(4):952–958. 14 FIG. S3: Diffusing attractant from a transient source. Bacterial populations (bottom row) are attracted to source of diffusing ...

    1993

  20. [28]

    5, n = 1, T = 0

    5, ω = 0. 5, n = 1, T = 0. 01, 0. 05, 0. 64; no bacterial growth

  21. [29]

    Chemoki- nesis in Rhodobacter sphaeroides is the result of a long term increase in the rate of flagellar rotation

    Brown S, Poole PS, Jeziorska W, Armitage JP. Chemoki- nesis in Rhodobacter sphaeroides is the result of a long term increase in the rate of flagellar rotation. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1993;1141:309–312

    1993

  22. [30]

    The chemokinetic and chemo- tactic behavior of Rhodobacter sphaeroides: Two inde- pendent responses

    Packer HL, Armitage JP. The chemokinetic and chemo- tactic behavior of Rhodobacter sphaeroides: Two inde- pendent responses. J Bacteriol. 1994;176(1):206–212

    1994

  23. [31]

    Variation in swimming speed of Escherichia coli in response to attractant

    Deepika D, Karmakar R, Tirumkudulu MS, Venkatesh KV. Variation in swimming speed of Escherichia coli in response to attractant. Arch Microbiol. 2014;197(2):211– 222

    2014

  24. [32]

    Temperature-induced behavioral switches in a bacterial coral pathogen

    Garren M, Son K, Tout J, Seymour JR, Stocker R. Temperature-induced behavioral switches in a bacterial coral pathogen. ISME J. 2016;10:1363–1372

    2016

  25. [33]

    Speed-dependent chemotactic precision in marine bacteria

    Son K, Menolascina F, Stocker R. Speed-dependent chemotactic precision in marine bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(31):1–6

    2016

  26. [34]

    Two mechanisms of chemotaxis in Paramecium

    Van Houten J. Two mechanisms of chemotaxis in Paramecium. J Comp Physiol. 1978;127(3):167–174

    1978

  27. [35]

    Chemosen- sory behavior in protozoa

    Van Houten J, Hauser D, Levandowsky M. Chemosen- sory behavior in protozoa. Biochemistry and physiology of protozoa. 1981;4:67–124

    1981

  28. [36]

    Computer simulation of Paramecium chemokinesis behavior

    Van Houten J, Van Houten J. Computer simulation of Paramecium chemokinesis behavior. Journal of Theoret- ical Biology. 1982;98(3):453–468

    1982

  29. [37]

    The ciliate Paramecium shows higher motility in non-uniform chemical landscapes

    Giuffre C, Hinow P, Vogel R, Ahmed T, Stocker R, Consi TR, et al. The ciliate Paramecium shows higher motility in non-uniform chemical landscapes. PloS one. 2011;6(4):e15274

    2011

  30. [38]

    Bacterial tracking of motile algae

    Barbara GM, Mitchell JG. Bacterial tracking of motile algae. FEMS Microbiology Ecology. 2003;44(1):79–87

    2003

  31. [39]

    Janus particles: synthesis, self- assembly, physical properties, and applications

    Walther A, Müller AH. Janus particles: synthesis, self- assembly, physical properties, and applications. Chem Rev. 2013;113(7):5194–5261

    2013

  32. [40]

    Self-motile colloidal particles: from directed propulsion to random walk

    Howse JR, Jones RA, Ryan AJ, Gough T, Vafabakhsh R, Golestanian R. Self-motile colloidal particles: from directed propulsion to random walk. Phys Rev Lett. 2007;99(4):048102

    2007

  33. [41]

    Simulating chemosensory responses of ma- rine microorganisms

    Jackson GA. Simulating chemosensory responses of ma- rine microorganisms. Limnol Oceanogr. 1987;32(6):1253– 1266

    1987

  34. [42]

    Growth-rate dependent resource investment in bacterial motile behavior quantitatively follows potential benefit of chemotaxis

    Ni B, Colin R, Link H, Endres RG, Sourjik V. Growth-rate dependent resource investment in bacterial motile behavior quantitatively follows potential benefit of chemotaxis. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2020;117(1):595–601

    2020

  35. [43]

    Theory of continuum random walks and application to chemotaxis

    Schnitzer MJ. Theory of continuum random walks and application to chemotaxis. Phys Rev E. 1993;48(4):2553– 2568

    1993

  36. [44]

    The diffusion limit of transport equations II: Chemotaxis equations

    Othmer HG, Hillen T. The diffusion limit of transport equations II: Chemotaxis equations. SIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics. 2002;62(4):1222–1250

    2002

  37. [45]

    Diffusive transport without detailed balance in motile bacteria: does microbiology need statistical physics? Rep Prog Phys

    Cates ME. Diffusive transport without detailed balance in motile bacteria: does microbiology need statistical physics? Rep Prog Phys. 2012;75(4):042601

    2012

  38. [46]

    Physical limits on bacterial navigation in dynamic envi- ronments

    Hein AM, Brumley DR, Carrara F, Stocker R, Levin SA. Physical limits on bacterial navigation in dynamic envi- ronments. J Royal Soc Interface. 2016;13(114):20150844

    2016

  39. [47]

    Mi- gration of chemotactic bacteria in soft agar: Role of gel concentration

    Croze OA, Ferguson GP, Cates ME, Poon WCK. Mi- gration of chemotactic bacteria in soft agar: Role of gel concentration. Biophys J. 2011;101(3):525–534

    2011

  40. [48]

    Chemotaxis: The role of internal delays

    De Gennes PG. Chemotaxis: The role of internal delays. Eur Biophys J. 2004;33(8):691–693

    2004

  41. [49]

    Microfluidics Expand- ing the Frontiers of Microbial Ecology

    Rusconi R, Garren M, Stocker R. Microfluidics Expand- ing the Frontiers of Microbial Ecology. Annu Rev Bio- phys. 2014;43(1):65–91

    2014

  42. [50]

    The mathematical analysis of bi- ological aggregation and dispersal: progress, problems and perspectives

    Othmer HG, Xue C. The mathematical analysis of bi- ological aggregation and dispersal: progress, problems and perspectives. In: Dispersal, individual movement and spatial ecology. Springer; 2013. p. 79–127

    2013

  43. [51]

    Painting with light-powered bacteria

    Arlt J, Martinez V A, Dawson A, Pilizota T, Poon WC. Painting with light-powered bacteria. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):768

    2018

  44. [52]

    Chemotaxis in bacteria

    Adler J. Chemotaxis in bacteria. Science. 1966;153:708– 716

    1966

  45. [53]

    Traveling concen- tration pulses of bacteria in a generalized Keller–Segel model

    Seyrich M, Palugniok A, Stark H. Traveling concen- tration pulses of bacteria in a generalized Keller–Segel model. New J Phys. 2019 oct;21(10):103001

    2019

  46. [54]

    Three genes of a motility operon and their role in flagellar ro- tary speed variation in Rhizobium meliloti

    Platzer J, Sterr W, Hausmann M, Schmitt R. Three genes of a motility operon and their role in flagellar ro- tary speed variation in Rhizobium meliloti. J Bacteriol. 1997;179(20):6391–6399

    1997

  47. [55]

    The metabolic cost of flagellar motion in P seu- domonas putida KT 2440

    Martínez-García E, Nikel PI, Chavarría M, de Lorenzo V. The metabolic cost of flagellar motion in P seu- domonas putida KT 2440. Environmental microbiology. 2014;16(1):291–303

    2014

  48. [56]

    Chemo- taxis toward phytoplankton drives organic matter parti- tioning among marine bacteria

    Smriga S, Fernandez VI, Mitchell JG, Stocker R. Chemo- taxis toward phytoplankton drives organic matter parti- tioning among marine bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2016;113(6):1576–1581

    2016

  49. [57]

    Rapid chemotactic response enables marine bacteria to exploit ephemeral microscale nutrient patches

    Stocker R, Seymour JR, Samadani A, Hunt DE, Polz MF. Rapid chemotactic response enables marine bacteria to exploit ephemeral microscale nutrient patches. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2008;105(11):4209–4214

    2008

  50. [58]

    Bacteria push the limits of chemotactic preci- sion to navigate dynamic chemical gradients

    Brumley DR, Carrara F, Hein AM, Yawata Y, Levin SA, Stocker R. Bacteria push the limits of chemotactic preci- sion to navigate dynamic chemical gradients. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2019;116(22):10792–10797

    2019

  51. [59]

    The energetics and scaling of search strategies in bacteria

    Mitchell JG. The energetics and scaling of search strategies in bacteria. The American Naturalist. 2002;160(6):727–740. 15

    2002

  52. [61]

    Trade-offs of chemotactic foraging in turbulent water

    Taylor JR, Stocker R. Trade-offs of chemotactic foraging in turbulent water. Science. 2012;338(6107):675–679

    2012

  53. [62]

    Persistence of direction increases the drift velocity of run and tumble chemotaxis

    Locsei JT. Persistence of direction increases the drift velocity of run and tumble chemotaxis. J Math Biol. 2007;55:41–60

    2007

  54. [63]

    Macroscopic equations for bacterial chemotaxis: integration of detailed biochemistry of cell signaling

    Xue C. Macroscopic equations for bacterial chemotaxis: integration of detailed biochemistry of cell signaling. J Math Biol. 2015;70(1-2):1–44

    2015

  55. [64]

    Temporal compar- isons in bacterial chemotaxis

    Segall JE, Block SM, Berg HC. Temporal compar- isons in bacterial chemotaxis. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1986;83(23):8987–8991

    1986

  56. [65]

    Marine bacterial chemoresponse to a stepwise chemoattractant stimulus

    Xie L, Lu C, Wu XL. Marine bacterial chemoresponse to a stepwise chemoattractant stimulus. Biophysical jour- nal. 2015;108(3):766–774

    2015

  57. [105]

    2 3, 4, S3 -

    0 S2 [29] ω 0. 2 3, 4, S3 -

Pith tools

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