Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 67 references

Stochastic motility energetics reveals cooperative bacterial swarming in optical tweezers

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Trapped Proteus mirabilis swarms form cooperative non-equilibrium steady states whose vortex-like flagellar flows break detailed balance and dissipate less energy than the sum of uncoordinated cells.

desk verdict Real PMM-OT measurements of trapped bacterial clusters, but the 'cooperative sub-additive dissipation' claim rests on an unmeasured baseline the authors admit to assuming. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.14573 v1 pith:RZPCS5SW submitted 2025-06-17 physics.bio-ph

Clara Luque-Rioja , Horacio López-Menéndez , Macarena Calero , Niccoló Caselli , Diego Herráez-Aguilar , Juan P.G. Villaluenga , Francisco Monroy This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.bio-ph
keywords Proteusmirabilisbacterialswarmingopticaltweezersphotonmomentummethodstochasticthermodynamicsnon-equilibriumsteadystatedetailedbalancecollectivedissipation
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 sets out to measure, at the level of a single cluster, how much energy a swarming group of bacteria spends while confined in an optical trap. It claims that clusters of about 10–20 Proteus mirabilis cells are cooperative non-equilibrium steady states: their flagella generate vortex-like force currents that break detailed balance, and the whole cluster dissipates roughly $1.3\times 10^{5}\,k_B T$ per second. That is about 40 times the dissipation of a passive dead cluster, but it is less than the paper's assumed uncooperative bound of $N$ times the single-cell power. If the claim holds, swarming is not just faster collective motion but an energetically organized state whose onset can be located: near $N_S \approx 9$–$10$ cells, the dominant force current flips from convergent trapping relaxation to vortical circulation. The payoff is that cooperative swarming becomes a measurable thermodynamic quantity—an entropy-producing, steady-state dissipation rate—rather than a purely kinematic description.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the combination of Photon Momentum Method optical tweezers (PMM–OT), multiple-particle tracking, and a stochastic-thermodynamic coarse-grained phase-space (CGPS) analysis. PMM–OT measures the trapping force directly from photon momentum transfer, with sub-piconewton sensitivity and no assumed spring model, while multiple-particle tracking supplies center-of-mass trajectories. In CGPS, the measured force field is separated by a Helmholtz–Hodge decomposition into a gradient (convergent) part and a rotational (solenoidal) part; the rotational part is the evidence for broken detailed balance. The paper models the active dissipation with a time-dependent friction tensor $\hat{\zeta}(t)$ and a curling tensor $\hat{\kappa} = \partial \hat{\zeta}/\partial t$, then compresses the energy budget into an Ohmic relation $P_{\rm act} = R_\zeta \bar J_\Omega^2$, where $R_\zeta$ is the effective friction resistance and $\bar J_\Omega$ the vortical dissipation current. That machinery converts raw force time-series into a thermodynamic budget—conservative trapping work, frictional loss, and swarming gain—and yields the linear cumulative-work law that anchors the cooperative-dissipation claim.

What would settle it

Trap about 20 live P. mirabilis cells together in one optical trap and, at the same laser power, trap the same number of cells individually in separate traps; if the summed single-cell dissipation is not clearly larger than the cluster dissipation, the paper's sub-additive cooperative-swarming claim would not survive a direct test.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a cluster of roughly 20 Proteus mirabilis cells held in an optical tweezer behaves as a cooperative non-equilibrium steady state. Direct Photon Momentum Method force measurements give active fluctuating forces of about 1.2–1.5 pN, an order of magnitude above the passive Brownian value of about 0.2 pN, and a coarse-grained phase-space decomposition of the force field shows that above $N_S \approx 9$–$10$ cells the dominant current changes from convergent, trap-dominated relaxation to vortical, curl-driven circulation. That switch is the paper's operational signature of broken detailed balance: flagellar swarming sustains rotational force currents that passive friction cannot produce. Integrating these forces along the cluster's center-of-mass path gives a cumulative work that grows linearly in time, $\bar W \approx R_\zeta \bar J_\Omega^2\, t$, corresponding to a measured power $P_S = (1.3 \pm 0.2)\times 10^{5}\,k_B T/\mathrm{s}$ for clusters of about 20 cells. The paper interprets the fact that this lies well below the assumed uncooperative bound $N P_1 \approx 3$ fW as evidence that swarming is cooperative and sub-additive: the group dissipates less energy than the same number of bacteria would dissipate acting alone.

Load-bearing premise

The claim that swarming is energetically cooperative assumes that uncoordinated bacteria would dissipate exactly $N$ times the single-cell power, $W_{UC}=N W_0^{(1)}$; if uncoordinated force fluctuations add in quadrature instead, the measured cluster power could fall at or below the baseline and the cooperative advantage would weaken or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A cluster of about 20 swarming bacteria dissipates $P_S \approx 1.3\times 10^{5}\,k_B T/\mathrm{s}$, about 40 times a passive cluster and below the assumed $N P_1$ uncooperative bound, so cooperation lowers the energetic cost of collective motility.
  • Above $N_S \approx 9$–$10$ cells, the dominant force current switches from convergent to vortical, giving a measurable structural signature of the cooperative onset.
  • Cumulative work grows linearly with time, $\bar W \approx R_\zeta \bar J_\Omega^2 t$, so the swarm's dissipated power can be predicted from an effective friction resistance and the vortical current, independent of trajectory details.
  • Rotational work, $\bar W_R \approx \bar{\kappa} \bar J_\Omega^2 t$, appears only in living clusters, identifying the vortex as a genuine dissipative engine rather than a passive artifact.
  • Entropy production is strictly positive, so a confined swarm can be treated thermodynamically as a well-defined non-equilibrium steady state.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the uncoordinated baseline is assumed rather than measured, the cleanest extension is a direct comparison of dissipation for the same cells clustered versus individually trapped; if confirmed, the result would imply that energy efficiency is itself a selected property of swarming.
  • The small Hill coefficient ($\alpha \approx 0.2$) suggests weak positive cooperativity in force generation; a testable consequence is that per-cell dissipation declines with $N$ toward the onset and then plateaus, a trend the paper does not report.
  • The Ohmic mapping of dissipation suggests a design rule for synthetic active clusters: energy cost could be programmed by shaping the effective friction tensor (for example, with asymmetric surface textures) rather than by controlling each motor individually.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental study of the stochastic energetics of optically trapped Proteus mirabilis swarming clusters, combining Photon Momentum Method (PMM) force measurements with multiparticle tracking. The authors measure fluctuating forces and center-of-mass work, identify vortex-like force currents that break detailed balance, and propose a Navier–Stokes-inspired framework with a 'curling tensor' to model active friction. Their central quantitative claim is that swarming clusters of about N ≈ 20 cells dissipate power PS = (1.3 ± 0.2) × 10^5 k_BT/s, which is 'well below the uncooperative bound' P_UC = N P_1 ≈ 3 fW, implying cooperative sub-additive dissipation. They also report a Hill-like cooperative onset near N_S ≈ 9–10 and an Ohmic linear cumulative work relation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper would provide one of the first direct energetic characterizations of collective bacterial swarming at the mesoscale, with a potentially generalizable experimental platform (PMM-OT plus multiparticle tracking) and a quantitative link between active matter thermodynamics and microbial cooperation. Strengths include direct, calibration-free force measurements via PMM; the use of coarse-grained phase-space (CGPS) analysis in the spirit of Battle et al.; dead-cell and bead controls; bootstrapped error bars; and explicit reporting of raw quantities such as power values. The conclusion of cooperative sub-additive dissipation, however, rests on an assumed baseline that is not measured, and the Ohmic and curling-tensor elements are imposed rather than independently tested.

major comments (4)
  1. [Results, 'Dissipated motility work: Ohmic currents' and Discussion] The central claim that swarming 'realizes optimal mesoscopic dissipation well below the uncooperative bound' depends entirely on the baseline W_UC = N W_0^(1), which is explicitly labeled 'assumed' in the text. This baseline is never measured: a dead cluster has zero active dissipation, and a single live cell gives P_1 but not N independent cells under the same confinement. If uncoordinated cells' flagellar forces partially cancel or hydrodynamic interactions reduce per-cell cost, the scaling of N independent cells need not be N P_1, and the reported factor of ~6 below the bound could shrink or disappear. The arithmetic is also inconsistent: with N ≈ 20 (the cluster size stated for P_S) and P_1 ≈ 0.3 fW, N P_1 = 6 fW, not the quoted 3 fW; using N = 10 makes the comparison inconsistent with the reported largest clusters. A directly measured independent-cells baseline is required before the sub-additivity conclusion can be supported.
  2. [Results, Eq. (1) and Fig. 2B] The Hill-like fit reports a Hill coefficient α = 0.21 ± 0.12, which is statistically consistent with zero (the 'cooperative amplification' is not distinguished from no N-dependence at the 2σ level). The critical cluster size N_S = 9 ± 2 is also used later (Fig. 3B) as the onset of vorticity, so the threshold is not independent of the fitting procedure. As written, the claim of a cooperative transition is not strongly supported by the reported fit parameters.
  3. [Results, Eqs. (10) and (11)] The Ohmic relation P_act = R_ζ J̄_Ω^2 is not tested independently: R_ζ is defined as the effective friction coefficient and J̄_Ω as the measured rotational current, so Eq. (10) is a restatement rather than a falsifiable prediction. The linear cumulative work in Eq. (11) follows from stationarity of the Stratonovich integral for a stationary force–displacement process, so the 'Ohmic' behavior is largely imposed by construction. The Dextran experiment (Suppl. Fig. S7) only checks the viscosity scaling of R_ζ; it does not test the quadratic dependence on J̄_Ω. The authors should provide a parameter-free test of P ∝ J̄_Ω^2 by varying the current (e.g., through cluster size or metabolic perturbation) and comparing the predicted versus measured power.
  4. [Results, 'Trapping convergence and active vorticity' and Suppl. Note N1] The 'curling tensor' κ̂ ≡ ∂ζ̂/∂t and the swarming force F_S = +κ̂ u are introduced without derivation in the main text, and the key constructs (R_ζ, Φ_S, Φ_L, κ̂) are not independently measured. The Helmholtz–Hodge / Navier–Stokes decomposition is used as the interpretive framework, but no identifiability analysis is shown to demonstrate that the decomposition into conservative and dissipative components is unique from the measured force fields. As a result, the mechanistic statements about 'lubricated curling' and the 'swarming gauge' are not currently falsifiable from the data.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3] The text refers to 'Fig. 3D' for the normalized cross-correlation functions, but Figure 3 contains only panels A–C; the cross-correlation appears to be in panel C.
  2. [Materials and Methods, 'Stochastic energetics'] The sentence 'Work was computed using discrete Itô calculus as ΔW_i = F_i ◦ Δr_i, where ◦ denotes Stratonovich multiplication' is internally contradictory; please clarify whether the discretization is Itô or Stratonovich.
  3. [Throughout] There are several typographical and stylistic issues, including 'bacteromotive fluxes' (Results), 'in-milieu propulsion' (Introduction), and inconsistent italicization of P. mirabilis.
  4. [Results, 'Cumulative trapping work: frictional gauges'] The statement 'The observed path-independence of W̄ ... confirms a steady Ohmic regime' is not supported by a quantitative test of path-independence. Please report the spread of W̄ over different integration protocols or a direct comparison of clockwise vs. counterclockwise trajectories.
  5. [Results, Eq. (9)] The quantities Φ_L and Φ_S are used in Eq. (9) before they are defined in the following sentence; please define them explicitly before first use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measured dissipation is a direct PMM-OT/MPT readout, and the explicitly 'assumed uncooperative bound' is a stated modeling assumption, not a hidden derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities are measured rather than derived from the conclusion. The Stratonovich work integral (Eq. 5) and the Hookean proxy (Eq. 6) are definitions/consistency relations: Eq. 6 follows from dr_i <=> F_i/k, and the reported agreement between W and W_inf is an internal check, not an out-of-sample prediction. The Ohmic relations (Eqs. 10-11) define an effective resistance in terms of measured power and rotational current and fit the observed linear cumulative work; they are presented as a modeling vocabulary, not as a falsifiable prediction generated from first principles. Parameters such as N_S, alpha, omega_S, and DeltaE_act are fit to the same data they describe, but the paper does not disguise these fits as predictions. The 'assumed uncooperative bound' W_UC = N W_0^(1) is explicitly labelled as assumed near Eq. 9 and in the Discussion, so the comparison P_S < N P_1 is conditional on an unmeasured single-cell-additive baseline; this is a limitation or missing control for the sub-additivity claim, but it is not a circular reduction because the measured P_S and the assumed baseline are independent inputs. Self-citations (refs. 44, 45, 49, 50) are methodological and are not load-bearing for the energetics conclusion. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central energetic and cooperative claims rest on several fitted parameters and on a newly invented curling-tensor formalism. The most consequential assumption is the uncoordinated bound W_UC = N W_0^(1), which is assumed rather than measured. The Ohmic dissipation law is a restatement of linear cumulative-work data rather than an independently tested relation.

free parameters (7)
  • critical cluster size N_S = 9 +/- 2
    Fitted to the Hill function (Eq. 1) describing the increase of fluctuating force with cluster size; defines the purported swarming onset.
  • Hill coefficient alpha = 0.21 +/- 0.12
    Fitted in Eq. (1); the large relative error makes the cooperative threshold poorly constrained.
  • saturation force <DeltaF>_max = 1.3 +/- 0.2 pN
    Fitted saturation of Eq. (1); used to assert Teff > T for clusters above N_S.
  • swarming oscillation frequency omega_S = about 20 s^-1
    Fitted from the oscillatory component of center-of-mass MSD (Eq. 4 and Fig. 4C).
  • active energy scale DeltaE_act = 10 to 20 kBT
    Amplitude parameter of the underdamped Brownian oscillator in MSD (Eq. 4 and Fig. 5B); not independently predicted.
  • effective internal viscosity eta = about 50 mPa s
    Assumed to set the elastohydrodynamic speed c = k/eta about 400 um/s; cited from a different bacterial species, not directly measured here.
  • effective Ohmic resistance R_zeta = not stated as a number; from Ohmic slope
    Defined as <zeta(eta,F_diss)> and extracted from the linear cumulative work slope (Eqs. 10 to 11); a restatement of the data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The optical trap is a linear harmonic spring with constant, isotropic stiffness k (16 to 20 pN/um) even for living, internally driven clusters
    Used throughout (Eq. 6, Methods) to convert force signals to displacement and compute work; if k changes with cluster internal activity, all energetics are off.
  • domain assumption The cluster center-of-mass plus effective friction tensor zeta(t) is a sufficient coarse-grained description of the swarm
    The entire stochastic energetics and Navier-Stokes analogy assumes the cluster is a single particle in a trapping potential with an anisotropic, time-dependent friction.
  • standard math The system is in a non-equilibrium steady state and the Stratonovich work integral is thermodynamically consistent (Sekimoto framework)
    Borrowed from stochastic thermodynamics (Refs. 4, 14); acceptable but the NESS assumption is not independently verified.
  • domain assumption Force fluctuations follow Maxwell statistics with variance DeltaF^2 related to Teff
    P(deltaF) assumed proportional to exp(-deltaF^2 / 2 DeltaF^2), used to define effective temperatures; not tested against non-Gaussian data.
  • ad hoc to paper The uncoordinated bound is W_UC = N W_0^(1), i.e., independent bacteria dissipate additively
    Explicitly 'assumed' in the text near Eq. (9); the entire cooperative-efficiency claim depends on this assumption, which is never measured.
  • ad hoc to paper The 'curling tensor' kappa = partial zeta/partial t exists and generates a swarming force F_S = +kappa u
    Introduced in the Results section and Suppl. Note N1 without microscopic derivation or independent measurement.
invented entities (3)
  • curling tensor kappa (time derivative of the friction tensor)
    purpose: Generates the active swarming force F_S = +kappa u and the 'lubricated curling' that drives vortical currents
    Posited in the Results and Suppl. Note N1; no experiment isolates kappa from the fitted data.
  • vector potential A = F_frict x u for the dissipative force
    purpose: Allows Helmholtz-Hodge decomposition with a 'lubrication gauge' and defines the Ohmic power balance
    Mathematical construction introduced to cast the measured force field into gradient and curl parts; not observable.
  • swarming gauge Phi_S and lubrication gauge Phi_L
    purpose: Used to define the energetic balance Pact = Ppass - Phi_L + Phi_S and interpret the dissipation
    Defined via the model friction tensor; no direct measurement.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stochastic motility energetics reveals cooperative bacterial swarming in optical tweezers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RZPCS5SW

@misc{pith2026250614573,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stochastic motility energetics reveals cooperative bacterial swarming in optical tweezers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RZPCS5SW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.14573}
}
read the original abstract

Bacterial flagellar swarming enables dense microbial populations to migrate collectively across surfaces, often resulting in emergent, coordinated behaviors. However, probing the underlying energetics of swarming at the single cluster level remains a challenge. Here, we combine optical tweezers and multiparticle tracking within a stochastic thermodynamic framework to characterize the active motility of confined Proteus mirabilis clusters. Using the Photon Momentum Method to directly measure trapping forces, we show that swarming clusters generate persistent, dissipative flows indicative of non equilibrium stationary motility within confined solenoidal mesostructures. These flagellar rotational dynamics break detailed balance in mesoscopic force space and exceed the limits of passive friction, as evidenced by force velocity correlations and vortex like circulations. By coarse graining cluster trajectories into an active Brownian phase space, we quantify the work performed by bacterial swarms at cooperative coupling to thermal fluctuations, resulting in dissipative Ohmic like currents overcoming conservative trapping. Our findings establish a generalizable approach to quantify collective motility and energetic dissipation in active bacterial clusters, offering new insights into the physical principles governing microbial cooperativity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.14573 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: C shows ensemble averages (N ≈ 20 cells per cluster, > 50 realizations) confirming W¯ ≈ W¯ inf (= W¯ cons − W¯ diss) within experimental uncertainty for both active and passive systems. As ensemble-averages, W¯ cons denotes the conservative work done by the trap on the…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Boltzmann, Sitzungsberichte Akademie der Wis- senschaften 66, 275 (1872)

    L. Boltzmann, Sitzungsberichte Akademie der Wis- senschaften 66, 275 (1872)

    work page

  2. [2]

    Chandrasekhar, Reviews of modern physics 15, 1 (1943)

    S. Chandrasekhar, Reviews of modern physics 15, 1 (1943)

    1943

  3. [3]

    Q. A. Wang, Astrophysics and Space Science305, 273 (2006)

    2006

  4. [4]

    Sekimoto, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supple- ment 130, 17 (1998)

    K. Sekimoto, Progress of Theoretical Physics Supple- ment 130, 17 (1998)

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    Seifert, Reports on progress in physics75, 126001 (2012)

    U. Seifert, Reports on progress in physics75, 126001 (2012)

    2012

  6. [6]

    Ciliberto, Physical Review X7, 021051 (2017)

    S. Ciliberto, Physical Review X7, 021051 (2017)

    2017

  7. [7]

    Peliti and S

    L. Peliti and S. Pigolotti,Stochastic Thermodynamics: An Introduction (Princeton University Press, 2021)

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Volpe, and G

    C.Bechinger, R.DiLeonardo, H.Löwen, C.Reichhardt, G. Volpe, and G. Volpe, Reviews of Modern Physics88, 045006 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 67 references
  1. [9]

    Battle, C

    C. Battle, C. P. Broedersz, N. Fakhri, V. F. Geyer, J. Howard, C. F. Schmidt, and F. C. MacKintosh, Sci- ence 352, 604 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    D. A. Egolf, Science287, 101 (2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    Prigogine,Non-Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics (In- terscience, 1962)

    I. Prigogine,Non-Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics (In- terscience, 1962)

    1962

  4. [12]

    G. T. Landi and M. Paternostro, Reviews of Modern Physics 93, 035008 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Monroy, M

    I.DiTerlizzi, M.Gironella, D.Herráez-Aguilar, T.Betz, F. Monroy, M. Baiesi, and F. Ritort, Science383, 971 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Stochastic energetics,

    K. Sekimoto, “Stochastic energetics,” (2010)

    2010

  7. [15]

    Dieball and A

    C. Dieball and A. Godec, Physical Review Letters133, 067101 (2024)

    2024

  8. [16]

    J. Li, J. M. Horowitz, T. R. Gingrich, and N. Fakhri, Nature communications10, 1666 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Aoki, Thermochimica Acta250, 359 (1995)

    I. Aoki, Thermochimica Acta250, 359 (1995)

    1995

  10. [18]

    Martin, A

    P. Martin, A. Hudspeth, and F. Jülicher, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences98, 14380 (2001)

    2001

  11. [19]

    Turlier, D

    H. Turlier, D. A. Fedosov, B. Audoly, T. Auth, N. S. Gov, C. Sykes, J.-F. Joanny, G. Gompper, and T. Betz, Nature physics12, 513 (2016)

    2016

  12. [20]

    C. W. Lynn, E. J. Cornblath, L. Papadopoulos, M. A. Bertolero, and D. S. Bassett, Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences118, e2109889118 (2021)

    2021

  13. [21]

    E.M.Purcell,AmericanJournalofPhysics 45,3(1977)

    1977

  14. [22]

    Lucia, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 12, 1 (2015)

    U. Lucia, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling 12, 1 (2015)

    2015

  15. [23]

    N. S. Goel and N. Richter-Dyn, Stochastic models in biology (Elsevier, 2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    M. E. Cates and J. Tailleur, Annu. Rev. Condens. Mat- ter Phys.6, 219 (2015)

    2015

  17. [25]

    A. E. Patteson, A. Gopinath, and P. E. Arratia, Nature communications 9, 5373 (2018)

    2018

  18. [26]

    D.J.SkinnerandJ.Dunkel,ProceedingsoftheNational Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 118, e2024300118 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Y. Deng, D. R. Beahm, S. Ionov, and R. Sarpeshkar, BMC biology19, 101 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    P. E. Schavemaker and M. Lynch, elife 11, e77266 (2022)

    2022

  21. [29]

    J. P. Armitage and R. M. Berry, Annual review of mi- crobiology 74, 181 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    M. D. Manson, P. Tedesco, H. C. Berg, F. M. Harold, and C. Van der Drift, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences74, 3060 (1977)

    1977

  23. [31]

    S. E. Tusk, N. J. Delalez, and R. M. Berry, Journal of molecular biology430, 4557 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Gottschalk, Regulation of bacterial metabolism (Springer, 1986)

    G. Gottschalk, Regulation of bacterial metabolism (Springer, 1986)

    1986

  25. [33]

    Lauga, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics48, 105 (2016)

    E. Lauga, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics48, 105 (2016)

    2016

  26. [34]

    J. A. Nirody, Y.-R. Sun, and C.-J. Lo, Advances in Physics: X2, 324 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    Kitao and H

    A. Kitao and H. Hata, Biophysical reviews 10, 617 (2018)

    2018

  28. [36]

    D. L. Koch and G. Subramanian, Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics43, 637 (2011)

    2011

  29. [37]

    Elgeti, R

    J. Elgeti, R. G. Winkler, and G. Gompper, Reports on progress in physics78, 056601 (2015)

    2015

  30. [38]

    Jones, M

    C. Jones, M. Gomez, R. M. Muoio, A. Vidal, R. A. Mcknight, N.D.Brubaker, andW.W.Ahmed,Physical Review E103, 032403 (2021)

    2021

  31. [39]

    C. J. Bustamante, Y. R. Chemla, S. Liu, and M. D. Wang, Nature Reviews Methods Primers1, 25 (2021)

    2021

  32. [40]

    Farré and M

    A. Farré and M. Montes-Usategui, Optics express18, 11955 (2010)

    2010

  33. [41]

    Farré, F

    A. Farré, F. Marsà, and M. Montes-Usategui,Optical Tweezers: Methods and Protocols , edited by A. Gen- nerich (Springer New York, New York, NY, 2017) pp. 41–76

    2017

  34. [42]

    Polin, I

    M. Polin, I. Tuval, K. Drescher, J. P. Gollub, and R. E. Goldstein, Science325, 487 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Tailleur and M

    J. Tailleur and M. E. Cates, Physical review letters100, 218103 (2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    Mell and F

    M. Mell and F. Monroy, PloS one13, e0207376 (2018)

    2018

  37. [45]

    Salinas-Almaguer, M

    S. Salinas-Almaguer, M. Mell, V. G. Almendro-Vedia, M. Calero, K. C. M. Robledo-Sánchez, C. Ruiz-Suarez, 13 T. Alarcón, R. A. Barrio, A. Hernández-Machado, and F. Monroy, Scientific reports12, 933 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Shinkai and Y

    S. Shinkai and Y. Togashi, EPL (Europhysics Letters) 105, 30002 (2014)

    2014

  39. [47]

    Zhang, T

    Z. Zhang, T. E. Kimkes, and M. Heinemann, Scientific reports 9, 19086 (2019)

    2019

  40. [48]

    G. Soni, B. J. Ali, Y. Hatwalne, and G. Shivashankar, Biophysical journal84, 2634 (2003)

    2003

  41. [49]

    Rodríguez-García, I

    R. Rodríguez-García, I. López-Montero, M. Mell, G. Egea, N. S. Gov, and F. Monroy, Biophysical journal 108, 2794 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Herráez-Aguilar, E

    D. Herráez-Aguilar, E. Madrazo, H. López-Menéndez, M. Ramírez, F. Monroy, and J. Redondo-Muñoz, Sci- entific reports10, 6707 (2020)

    2020

  43. [51]

    Speck, Europhysics Letters114, 30006 (2016)

    T. Speck, Europhysics Letters114, 30006 (2016)

    2016

  44. [52]

    Mandal, K

    D. Mandal, K. Klymko, and M. R. DeWeese, Physical review letters119, 258001 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    C. E. Armbruster, H. L. Mobley, and M. M. Pearson, EcoSal Plus8, 10 (2018)

    2018

  46. [54]

    Douglas, Journal of Medical Microbiology12, 195 (1979)

    C. Douglas, Journal of Medical Microbiology12, 195 (1979)

    1979

  47. [55]

    Matsuyama, Y

    T. Matsuyama, Y. Takagi, Y. Nakagawa, H. Itoh, J. Wakita, and M. Matsushita, Journal of Bacteriol- ogy 182, 385 (2000)

    2000

  48. [56]

    Chen, Y.-H

    C.-Y. Chen, Y.-H. Chen, P.-L. Lu, W.-R. Lin, T.-C. Chen, and C.-Y. Lin, Journal of Microbiology, Im- munology and Infection45, 228 (2012)

    2012

  49. [57]

    C. E. Armbruster and H. L. Mobley, Nature Reviews Microbiology 10, 743 (2012)

    2012

  50. [58]

    J. F. Hoeniger, Microbiology40, 29 (1965)

    1965

  51. [59]

    Methods for studying swarming and swimming motility,

    M. M. Pearson, “Methods for studying swarming and swimming motility,” inProteus mirabilis: Methods and Protocols, edited by M. M. Pearson (Springer, NY,

  52. [60]

    H. H. Tuson, M. F. Copeland, S. Carey, R. Sacotte, and D. B. Weibel, Journal of bacteriology195, 368 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    C. W. Gardineret al., Handbook of stochastic methods , Vol. 3 (springer Berlin, 1985)

    1985

  54. [62]

    Ashkin and J

    A. Ashkin and J. M. Dziedzic, Science235, 1517 (1987)

    1987

  55. [63]

    M. E. Cates, in Active Matter and Nonequilibrium Statistical Physics: Les Houches Summer School: Volume 112, 2018 (Oxford University Press, 2022) https://academic.oup.com/book/0/chapter/385616349/chapter- pdf/50136465/oso-9780192858313-chapter-6.pdf

    2018

  56. [64]

    G. E. Piñas, V. Frank, A. Vaknin, and J. S. Parkinson, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences113, 3335 (2016)

    2016

  57. [65]

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz,Fluid Mechanics: Vol- ume 6, Vol. 6 (Elsevier, 1987)

    1987

  58. [66]

    K. C. Leptos, M. Chioccioli, S. Furlan, A. I. Pesci, and R. E. Goldstein, Physical Review E107, 014404 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Dautray and J.-L

    R. Dautray and J.-L. Lions, Spectral Theory and Ap- plications, Mathematical Analysis and Numerical Meth- ods for Science and Technology, Vol. 3 (Springer-Verlag, 1990)

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.