Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 68 references

Bacteria exploit torque-induced buckling instability for flagellar wrapping

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that the onset of flagellar wrapping is a motor-torque-induced buckling instability of a helical filament, with the stability boundary $M_c = 0.06(R/L)^{-3}$.

desk verdict Solid elastohydrodynamic buckling result, but the bacterial comparison has a likely parameter error that flips one species into the stable region. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.14207 v1 pith:VT3ESVAX submitted 2025-04-19 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Takuro Kataoka , Taiju Yoneda , Daisuke Nakane , Hirofumi Wada This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords flagellarwrappingmotortorquebucklinginstabilityhelicalfilamentelastohydrodynamicsStokesiandynamicsbacterialmotilityrotary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that flagellar wrapping, in which a bacterium coils its flagellum around its body and screws through viscous or confined fluids, begins as a motor-torque-induced buckling instability of a helical filament, not as a separately regulated biological program. It builds a tabletop model of a soft elastomer helix rotating in glycerin around a rigid cylinder and matches its behavior to a Stokesian-dynamics simulation that includes long-range hydrodynamic interactions. Experiment and simulation together collapse onto the stability boundary $M_c = 0.06(R/L)^{-3}$ in terms of the dimensionless drive $M = \eta\omega L^4/A$. Placing published bacterial data on that diagram puts three wrapping species in the unstable region and the non-wrapping normal form in the stable region. If the claim is right, the onset of wrapping is set by geometry, fluid viscosity, filament stiffness, and motor speed, and bacteria need only a sufficiently high-torque motor to trigger it.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the elastohydrodynamic buckling of a helical filament: the motor applies an unwinding torque while viscous drag resists, and when the viscous work rate overcomes the elastic cost of a kink of curvature scale $A/R$, the helix buckles. The controlling group is $M = \eta\omega L^4/A$, the ratio of viscous rotation to elastic relaxation, and the stability boundary is $M_c = 0.06(R/L)^{-3}$. The numerical machinery combines the Kirchhoff elastic-rod formulation with Stokesian dynamics using Rotne-Prager mobility tensors for long-range hydrodynamic interactions; switching off the long-range interactions removes the quantitative agreement with experiment. The slow dynamics near onset are described by the supercritical Hopf bifurcation scaling $t_c/T \sim \epsilon^{-1}$.

What would settle it

Track a single wrapping flagellum or a controlled bundle of known $n$, $R$, $L$, and stiffness in a viscosity-calibrated fluid, and record the rotation frequency at which the first kink appears; if buckling starts at $M \neq 0.06(R/L)^{-3}$, or if an independently measured bacterial point lands on the stable side of the line, the central scaling claim is false.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a soft helix driven by an unwinding torque in a viscous fluid loses stability through a buckling transition once the nondimensional angular velocity $M = \eta\omega L^4/A$ exceeds a critical value that scales as $(R/L)^{-3}$. The instability appears as a localized kink, or perversion, connecting opposite-handed sections of the helix, and when a rigid cylinder is present the buckled helix wraps around it. The paper shows that long-range hydrodynamic interactions are essential for quantitative agreement, because they reduce the effective rotational friction of the flexible helix and help the wrapping complete rapidly. Above onset, the waiting time until buckling slows as $t_c/T \sim \epsilon^{-1}$, consistent with a supercritical Hopf bifurcation. The paper concludes that bacteria exploit this motor-driven instability to initiate their wrapping motility, and that the coiled, large-radius polymorphic form is mechanically necessary because the normal form would require a torque beyond any bacterial motor.

Load-bearing premise

The biological comparison assumes that a bundle of $n$ flagella behaves as one elastic helix whose stiffness is $n$ times that of a single filament, and it uses motor speeds, viscosities, and lengths estimated from published images and movies; if those estimates are substantially wrong, the three bacterial data points could cross the stability boundary.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the scaling claim is correct, the onset of wrapping is set by mechanical inputs alone: geometry, viscosity, filament stiffness, and motor speed.
  • The coiled polymorphic form is mechanically necessary; with the normal-form radius, the required torque would exceed what bacterial motors can produce.
  • Wrapping-capable bacteria must have high-torque motors, on the order of the 2000-4000 pN nm values reported for several species.
  • Raising the viscosity of the medium raises $M$, which explains why the fraction of wrapping cells increases in more viscous media.
  • The flexible hook at the flagellar base acts as a torque-transmitting universal joint, so real bacteria wrap without the loop seen in the clamped model, and an engineered hook-like joint could let artificial swimmers wrap in confined fluids.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test not reported in the paper: attach a bead to a single flagellar motor and read the torque-speed curve during wrapping; the critical torque should sit near $0.5A/R$ regardless of species.
  • The $(R/L)^{-3}$ boundary is a design rule for artificial micro-swimmers: a slightly larger helical radius or a shorter filament lowers the motor speed needed for wrapping, at the cost of bulk.
  • The model clamps the cell body, whereas a free-swimming body counter-rotates; letting the body rotate in the model may shift the boundary slightly, a natural extension the paper leaves open.
  • If bundle stiffness indeed scales as $nB_1$, then bundling is itself a mechanical switch: a bacterium can move from stable to unstable by recruiting more filaments into the bundle without changing motor speed.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a combined experimental, numerical, and theoretical study of torque-induced buckling of a helical filament rotating in a viscous fluid, motivated by flagellar wrapping in bacteria. A macroscale table-top model uses silicone helices in glycerin, and simulations combine the Kirchhoff elastic rod formulation with Stokesian dynamics including long-range hydrodynamic interactions. The central result is a stability diagram in terms of the dimensionless angular frequency M = ηωL^4/A versus the geometric parameter (R/L)^3, with the boundary Mc = 0.06(R/L)^−3, rationalized by a power-balance scaling argument. The authors show that long-range hydrodynamic interactions are necessary to reproduce the experimental dynamics, that available data for wrapping bacteria fall in the predicted unstable region while a normal-form flagellum falls in the stable region, and that the waiting time for buckling onset above threshold scales as ε^−1, consistent with a supercritical Hopf bifurcation. The paper concludes that wrapping onset is a generic motor-torque-induced mechanical instability rather than a dedicated biological control pathway.

Significance. If the result holds, it provides a quantitative physical mechanism for flagellar wrapping, with onset set by geometry, fluid viscosity, filament stiffness, and motor speed. The study's strengths are the clean combination of macroscale experiments, elastohydrodynamic simulation with HIs, and a scaling argument that yields the functional form Mc ∼ (R/L)^−3, plus falsifiable placements of bacterial species on the stability diagram. The paper is also refreshing in explicitly demonstrating, rather than assuming, the importance of long-range hydrodynamic interactions for geometrically nonlinear filament deformation. However, the quantitative predictive content is partly weakened by the empirical prefactor 0.06, the 1.115 rescaling of ωc used in the critical-slowing-down test, and the reliance on estimated biological parameters in Fig. 5; these issues limit the strength of the claim that the boundary is a parameter-free prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section IV, Fig. 5] The stability boundary is presented as "the theoretical prediction Mc = 0.06×(R/L)^−3" and as being "validated" by the data, but the prefactor 0.06 is obtained by fitting the experimental and numerical data; the scaling argument in Eq. (2) fixes only the functional form (R/L)^−3. Please state this distinction explicitly and quantify the uncertainty of the prefactor, for example from the spread of data in Fig. 5 or from a collapse analysis. Because the bacterial star symbols in Fig. 5 are compared with this fitted line, the margin by which the bacteria sit in the unstable region should be re-examined for prefactors within the fitted range.
  2. [Appendix F, Fig. 6] The claimed ε^−1 critical slowing down in Fig. 6 is obtained after multiplying the experimentally and numerically determined ωc values by 1.115. Since ε is defined with respect to ωc, this rescaling directly affects the abscissa and therefore the fitted slope. Please show the same plot without the 1.115 factor, or with an independently estimated ωc, and report whether the slope −1 is still consistent within the scatter. As written, the quantitative support for Eq. (3) is weaker than the text suggests.
  3. [Appendix G, Fig. 5] The biological comparison rests on several estimated inputs: the P. putida rotation frequency f=50 Hz and viscosity η=0.2 mPa·s are assumed, the flagellar number n=3 is assumed; S. putrefaciens f=50 Hz is estimated from a movie; C. insecticola L=7.1 µm is estimated from an image; and the bundle stiffness is taken as Bn = nB1. None of these uncertainties is propagated into the star symbols in Fig. 5. Please provide a sensitivity analysis giving ranges of M for each species under plausible parameter variations, and add error bars or uncertainty regions to Fig. 5, so the claim that wrapping bacteria lie in the unstable region is quantitatively supported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Section I] "Recent advances in microscopy techniques has uncovered" should be "have uncovered".
  2. [References] References 9, 22, 23, and 32 contain apparent errors: in Ref. [9] "Kesseler" should be "Kessler"; in Ref. [22] the volume "72" should be "12"; Ref. [23] has "Proc. Natl. Acad. U.S.A." missing a period; Ref. [32] is a preprint and should be updated with journal details if available.
  3. [Appendix D] In the sentence defining the spontaneous geometry, the parameters are printed as "κ0" twice; the second quantity is the spontaneous torsion and should be denoted τ0.
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (2)] The quantity P in the power balance is not defined explicitly; if it is the motor power, define it and clarify the dimensional steps leading to P∼Aω/R and to Eq. (2).
  5. [Fig. 6 and Eq. (3)] The dashed line in Fig. 6 is labeled "0.5/ε", but Eq. (3) states tc/T∼ε^−1; please explain the factor 0.5 or state explicitly that the line is a guide to the eye rather than a quantitative prediction.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 5.0 of 10

Scaling exponent and bacterial comparison retain independent content, but the stability-boundary prefactor and the critical-slowing-down omega_c are calibrated to the same data they are used to validate.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section IV (Scaling argument and diagram), Fig. 5, after Eq. (2)]
    "In terms of M, the scaling prediction Eq. (2) can be expressed as Mc∼ (R/L)−3, which is verified subsequently. Integrating experimental and numerical data for various sets of parameters, we constructed the stability diagram in Fig. 5 with the filled and open symbols representing buckling instabilities and no instabilities, respectively. The solid line in Fig. 5 represents the theoretical prediction Mc = 0.06× (R/L)−3, which is validated by the experimental and simulation data."

    The power balance in Eq. (2) yields only the exponent (R/L)^-3; the factor 0.06 is not derived from the scaling argument anywhere in the paper. The same experimental and simulation data that determine where the line sits in Fig. 5 are then cited as 'validating' the line, so the prefactor is calibrated to the very dataset that is claimed to confirm it. The functional form remains an independent scaling prediction and the bacterial positions are an external comparison, but the quantitative boundary Mc = 0.06(R/L)^-3 is a fitted input presented as a theoretical prediction.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Appendix F (Post-buckling dynamics) and Section V, Fig. 6]
    "In Fig. 6 in the main paper, we adjusted ωc to obtain the best scaling behavior; ωcs in Fig. 6 are assumed 1.115 times larger than those shown in the lengend in Fig. 13 (a). This level of the adjustment is acceptable considering the intrinsic ambiguity of the prefactor 0.06 in the scaling relation for ωc determined in the phase diagram in Fig. 5."

    The claimed critical slowing down tc/T ∼ ϵ^-1, Eq. (3), is tested using ϵ = (ω − ωc)/ωc. Because ωc is explicitly adjusted to obtain the best collapse, the agreement of the data with the Hopf power law is in part produced by the fit rather than independently predicted. The paper itself ties this adjustment to the already-calibrated 0.06 prefactor from Fig. 5, so the quantitative critical boundary inherits the same fitted input and cannot serve as an independent confirmation of the Hopf scaling.

full rationale

The derivation chain is only partially circular. The Section IV power balance independently yields the exponent Mc ∼ (R/L)^-3, and the parameter-free experiment-versus-simulation comparison in Fig. 4(c–e) supports the elastohydrodynamic model. The bacterial points in Fig. 5 are estimated from external literature parameters and are a genuine out-of-sample test of the scaling surface; they are not constructed from the fitted line. However, two quantitative layers are calibrated rather than predicted: the factor 0.06 in Mc = 0.06(R/L)^-3 is not derived from the scaling argument but is read off the same experimental and numerical dataset used to 'validate' the boundary, and the Hopf-type scaling in Fig. 6 is obtained after multiplying ωc by 1.115 'to obtain the best scaling behavior' (Appendix F), so the apparent 1/ϵ collapse is partly imposed by the adjustment. These are fitted inputs presented as predictions, but they do not by themselves force the central biological conclusion, which rests on the independent exponent and the external bacterial comparison. No load-bearing self-citation chain was found: Ref. [47] is only a consistency remark about whirling of straight filaments, and Ref. [32] concerns a modeling simplification rather than the buckling threshold. Score 5 reflects partial calibration without collapse of the whole claim.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central scaling law is grounded in a power balance and validated by experiment and simulation, so the theory is not loaded with invented entities. The main burden is carried by domain assumptions about Stokes flow, single-filament representation of flagellar bundles, fixed cell body, and neglect of the cylinder's no-slip boundary, plus several hand-set biophysical parameters in the bacterial comparison.

free parameters (7)
  • Prefactor for stability boundary = 0.06
    The scaling exponent Mc ~ (R/L)^-3 follows from the power balance, but the constant 0.06 is fit to the combined experimental and numerical data in Fig. 5.
  • Critical frequency rescaling factor for supercritical dynamics = 1.115
    Appendix F: we adjusted omega_c to obtain the best scaling behavior; omega_c values are multiplied by 1.115 before plotting tc/T vs eps in Fig. 6.
  • Young's modulus enhancement in helix stretching fit = 1.2x measured E
    In Section II and Appendix D, E is taken 1.2 times the independently measured 1.33 MPa to make the analytical force-extension curve match; a calibration adjustment, not used in the main simulation.
  • P. putida rotation frequency in biological comparison = 50 Hz
    Assumed in Appendix G because Ref. [21] gives no value; moves the bacterial data point in Fig. 5.
  • P. putida medium viscosity in biological comparison = 0.2 mPa s
    Assumed in Appendix G because Ref. [21] does not report viscosity; changes the M coordinate in Fig. 5.
  • S. putrefaciens rotation frequency in biological comparison = 50 Hz
    Estimated from the approximately 20 ms period of one coil turn in Movie S2 of Ref. [20]; not directly measured.
  • C. insecticola filament contour length = 7.1 um
    Estimated in Appendix G by interpreting an end-to-end distance of 6 um from a published image at pitch angle 32 degrees, although the average contour length reported in Ref. [22] is 5.6 um.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Stokes flow: inertia is negligible and viscous forces dominate (Re about 2e-2 in the experiment, Re below 1e-4 for bacteria).
    Used throughout Sections III and IV in the force/torque balance (Eq. 4) and the power balance giving Eq. (2).
  • domain assumption A flagellar bundle behaves as a single elastic helix with bending stiffness Bn = nB1.
    Stated in Section I and Appendix G; this maps multi-flagellated species onto the single-filament phase diagram.
  • domain assumption The cell body can be treated as fixed; its rotation and translation do not affect the buckling onset.
    Section I states counter-motion of the cell body slightly increases the success rate but is less important for the flagellar buckling; the experiment and simulation accordingly clamp the helix.
  • domain assumption The no-slip boundary at the cylindrical body can be neglected in the Stokesian dynamics; the unbounded Rotne-Prager mobility is sufficient for the buckling stage.
    Section VII E states the non-slip condition is neglected and justifies this by the quantitative agreement with the experiment in Fig. 4.
  • standard math Kirchhoff elastic rod theory with linear bending and twisting stiffness describes the filament.
    Used in the numerical method (Refs. [30], [57-59]) and in the analytical force-extension comparison (Eq. 1).
  • domain assumption For part of the dataset, room temperature was not recorded, and 20 degrees C was assumed to estimate glycerin viscosity.
    Appendix C3; affects rescaling of experimental data in the stability diagram, but the uncertainty is small.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bacteria exploit torque-induced buckling instability for flagellar wrapping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VT3ESVAX

@misc{pith2026250414207,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bacteria exploit torque-induced buckling instability for flagellar wrapping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VT3ESVAX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.14207}
}
read the original abstract

Recent advances in microscopy techniques has uncovered unique aspects of flagella-driven motility in bacteria. A remarkable example is the discovery of flagellar wrapping, a phenomenon whereby a bacterium wraps its flagellum (or flagellar bundle) around its cell body and propels itself like a corkscrew, enabling locomotion in highly viscous or confined environments. For certain bacterial species, this flagellar-wrapping mode is crucial for establishing selective symbiotic relationships with their hosts. The transformation of a flagellum from an extended to a folded (wrapped) state is triggered by a buckling instability driven by the motor-generated torque that unwinds the helical filament. This study investigated this biologically inspired, novel buckling mechanism through a combination of macroscale physical experiments, numerical simulations, and scaling theory to reveal its underlying physical principles. Excellent quantitative agreement between experiments and numerical results showed that long-range hydrodynamic interactions (HIs) are essential for accurate quantitative descriptions of the geometrically nonlinear deformation of the helical filament during wrapping. By systematically analyzing extensive experimental and numerical data, we constructed a stability diagram that rationalized the stability boundary through an elastohydrodynamic scaling analysis. Leveraging the scaling nature of this study, we compared our physical results with available biological data and demonstrated that bacteria exploit motor-induced buckling instability to initiate their flagellar wrapping. Our findings indicate that this mechanically-driven process is essential to bacterial-wrapping motility and consequently, plays a critical role in symbiosis and infection.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.14207 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sequential fluorescent images of the wrapping dy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Overview of experimental system: (a) Flexible he [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Uniaxial stretching test of the fabricated helix. (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Buckling and wrapping behavior of the rotating helix. (a–b) Comparison between experiment and numerical simulation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: is consistent with these observations as a large value of η implies a large value of M and the helix may become unstable for a given ω [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Stability phase diagram of a helix subjected to an unwinding torque in a viscous fluid, constructed from a series [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Critical dynamics of buckling: Nondimensionalized [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Overview of our experimental system: (a) Photograph of the experimental setup. (b) Fabrication apparatus of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Measurement of the elastic parameters of our iron-mixed silicone elastomer: (a) Photograph of tensile test system. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Uniaxial stretching test of a fabricated helical rod: (a) Photograph of the experimental system. A helix was stretched [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Stereoscopic reconstruction of motion of a free end of a helical rod during wrapping. (a) Overview of our 3D tracking [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 66 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    H. C. Berg and R. A. Anderson, Nature 245, 380 (1973)

    work page 1973

  2. [2]

    Wadhwa and H

    N. Wadhwa and H. C. Berg, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 20, 161 (2022)

    work page 2022

  3. [3]

    G. I. Taylor, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 209, 447 (1951)

    work page 1951

  4. [4]

    Lighthill, SIAM Rev

    J. Lighthill, SIAM Rev. 18, 161 (1976)

    work page 1976

  5. [5]

    E. M. Purcell, Am. J. Phys. 45, 3 (1977)

    work page 1977

  6. [6]

    Lauga and T

    E. Lauga and T. R. Powers, Rep. Prog. Phys. 72, 096601 (2009)

    2009

  7. [7]

    Lauga, Annu

    E. Lauga, Annu. Rev. Fluid Mech. 48, 105 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Hotani, J

    H. Hotani, J. Mol. Biol. 156, 791 (1982)

    work page 1982

Show all 68 references
  1. [9]

    Coombs, G

    D. Coombs, G. Huber, J. O. Kesseler, and R. E. Gold- stein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 118102 (2002)

    2002

  2. [10]

    H. C. Berg, E. coli in Motion (Springer-Verlag, New York, 2004)

    2004

  3. [11]

    Childress, Mechanics of Swimming and Flying (Cam- bridge Univ

    S. Childress, Mechanics of Swimming and Flying (Cam- bridge Univ. Press, New York, 1981)

    1981

  4. [12]

    Dombrowski, L

    C. Dombrowski, L. Cisneros, S. Chatkaew, R. E. Gold- stein, and J. O. Kessler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 098103 (2004)

    2004

  5. [13]

    Ishikawa, J

    T. Ishikawa, J. Royal Soc. Interface 6, 815 (2009)

    2009

  6. [14]

    Raina, V

    J.-B. Raina, V. Fernandez, B. Lambert, R. Stocker, and J. R. Seymour, Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 17, 284 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    S. A. Biondi, J. A. Quinn, and H. Goldfine, AIChE J. 44, 1923 (1998)

    1998

  8. [16]

    M. W. Harman, S. M. Dunham-Ems, M. J. Caimano, A. A. Belperron, L. K. Bockenstedt, H. C. Fu, J. D. Radolf, and C. W. Wolgemuth, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 109, 3059 (2012)

    2012

  9. [17]

    P. E. Arratia, Phys. Rev. Fluids 7, 110515 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Grognot and K

    M. Grognot and K. M. Taute, Curr. Opin. Microbiol. 61, 73 (2021)

    2021

  11. [19]

    K. M. Thormann, C. Beta, and M. J. K¨ uhn, Ann. Rev. Microbiol. 76, 349 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    M. J. K¨ uhn, F. K. Schmidt, B. Eckhardt, and K. M. Thormann, Proc.Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 114, 6340 (2017)

    2017

  13. [21]

    Hintsche, V

    M. Hintsche, V. Waljor, R. Großmann, F. Peruani, and C. Beta, Sci. Rep. 7, 16771 (2017)

    2017

  14. [22]

    Kinosita, Y

    Y. Kinosita, Y. Kikuchi, N. Mikami, D. Nakane, and T. Nishizaka, ISME J. 72, 19 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Ohbayashi, K

    T. Ohbayashi, K. Takeshita, W. Kitagawa, N. Nikoh, R. Koga, X.-Y. Meng, K. Tago, T. Hori, M. Hayatsu, K. Asano, Y. Kamagata, B. L. Lee, T. Fukatsu, and Y. Kikuchi, Proc. Natl. Acad. U.S.A. 112, E5179 (2015). 9

    2015

  16. [24]

    J. Park, Y. Kim, W. Lee, and S. Lim, Sci. Rep. 12, 6482 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    R. M. Macnab, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 74, 221 (1977)

    1977

  18. [26]

    M. Kim, J. C. Bird, A. J. V. Parys, K. S. Breuer, and T. R. Powers, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A 100, 15481 (2003)

    2003

  19. [27]

    B. Liu, T. R. Powers, and K. S. Breuer, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 108, 19516 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Rodenborn, C.-H

    B. Rodenborn, C.-H. Chen, H. L. Swinney, B. Liu, and H. P. Zhang, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 110, E338 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    M. K. Jawed, N. K. Khouri, F. Da, E. Grinspun, and P. M. Reis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 168101 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Audoly and Y

    B. Audoly and Y. Pomeau, Elasticity and Geometry (Ox- ford University Press, New York, 2010)

    2010

  23. [31]

    Manghi, X

    M. Manghi, X. Schlagberger, Y.-W. Kim, and R. R. Netz, Soft Matter 2, 653 (2006)

    2006

  24. [32]

    Symbiotic bac- teria break through micrometer-level narrow passages by flagella wrapping,

    A. Yoshioka, Y. Shimada, T. Omori, N. Uemura, K. T. adn K. Ishigami, H. Morimura, M. Furubayashi, T. Kan, H. Wada, Y. Kikuchi, and D. Nakane, “Symbiotic bac- teria break through micrometer-level narrow passages by flagella wrapping,” (2025), preprint

    2025

  25. [33]

    Wada and R

    H. Wada and R. R. Netz, Europhys. Lett. 77, 68001 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    K. E. Machin, J. Exp. Biol. 35, 796 (1958)

    1958

  27. [35]

    McMillen and A

    T. McMillen and A. Goriely, J. Nonlinear Sci. 12, 241 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    Dilly, S

    E. Dilly, S. Neukirch, J. Derr, and D. Zanchi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 177201 (2023)

    2023

  29. [37]

    Wada and R

    H. Wada and R. R. Netz, Europhys. Lett. 87, 38001 (2009)

    2009

  30. [38]

    I. R. Bruss, H. K. Mutha, K. Stoll, B. Collins, V. Nguyen, D. J. C. Carter, M. P. Brenner, and K. J. Russell, Phys. Rev. Research 1, 032020(R) (2019)

    2019

  31. [39]

    N. C. Darnton and H. C. Berg, Biophys. J 96, 2230 (2007)

    2007

  32. [40]

    X. Shen, P. N. Tran, B. Z. Tay, and Marcos, Biophys. J 121, 1975 (2022)

    2022

  33. [41]

    Sowa and R

    Y. Sowa and R. M. Berry, Q. Rev. Biophys. 41, 103 (2008)

    2008

  34. [42]

    J. P. Celli, B. S. Turner, N. H. Afdhal, S. Keates, I. Ghi- ran, C. P. Kelly, R. H. Ewoldt, G. H. McKinley, P. So, S. Erranmilli, and R. Bansil, Proc. Natl. Acad. U.S.A. 106, 14321 (2009)

    2009

  35. [43]

    Nakamura, A

    S. Nakamura, A. Leshansky, Y. Magariyama, K. Namba, and S. Kudo, Biophys. J. 106, 47 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Y. Sowa, H. Hotta, M. Homma, and A. Ishijima, J. Mol. Biol. 327, 1043 (2003)

    2003

  37. [45]

    Gross and H

    M. Gross and H. Greenside, Pattern Formation and Dy- namics in Nonequilibrium Systems (Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, 2009)

    2009

  38. [46]

    C. W. Wolgemuth, T. R. Powers, and R. E. Goldstein, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1623 (2000)

    2000

  39. [47]

    Wada and R

    H. Wada and R. R. Netz, Europhys. Lett. 75, 645 (2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    Mondino, F

    S. Mondino, F. S. Martin, and A. Buschiazzo, J. Biol. Chem. 298, 102105 (2022)

    2022

  41. [49]

    Vogel and H

    R. Vogel and H. Stark, Eur. Phys. J. E 35, 15 (2012)

    2012

  42. [50]

    K. Son, J. S. Guasto, and R. Stocker, Nat. Phys. 9, 494 (2013)

    2013

  43. [51]

    Jabbarzadeh and H

    M. Jabbarzadeh and H. C. Fu, Phys. Rev. E 97, 012402 (2018)

    2018

  44. [52]

    de Anda, E

    J. de Anda, E. Y. Lee, C. K. Lee, R. R. Bennet, X. Ji, S. Soltani, M. C. Harrison, A. E. Baker, Y. Luo, T. Chou, G. A. O’Toole, A. M. Armani, R. Golestanian, and G. C. L. Wong, ACS Nano 11, 9340 (2017)

    2017

  45. [53]

    Ishimoto, J

    K. Ishimoto, J. Fluid Mech. 880, 620 (2019)

    2019

  46. [54]

    Huang, F

    H.-W. Huang, F. E. Uslu, P. Katsamba, E. Lauga, M. S. Sakar, and B. J. Nelson, Sci. Adv. 5, eaau1532 (2019)

    2019

  47. [55]

    Gidituri, M

    H. Gidituri, M. Ellero, and F. B. Usabiaga, J. Fluid Mech. 993, A7 (2024)

    2024

  48. [56]

    T. G. Sano, M. Pezzulla, and P. M. Reis, J. Mech. Phys. Solids 160, 104739 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Chirico and J

    G. Chirico and J. Langowski, Biopolymers 34, 415 (1994)

    1994

  50. [58]

    Chirico, Biopolymers 38, 801 (1996)

    G. Chirico, Biopolymers 38, 801 (1996)

    1996

  51. [59]

    Wada and R

    H. Wada and R. R. Netz, Phys. Rev. E80, 021921 (2009). Appendix A: Macroscale Experiment

    2009

  52. [60]

    An acrylic cylinder with a thickness of 4 mm, outer diameter of 5 cm, and axial length of 25 cm was attached to the center of the lid of the tank

    Experimental apparatus A cuboid acrylic water tank with thickness of 1 cm and inner diameter of 30 cm × 30 cm× 60 cm was filled with approximately 50 L of liquid glycerin of the mass density ρgly = 1.25 g/cm3 at temperature T = 20◦. An acrylic cylinder with a thickness of 4 mm...

  53. [61]

    Fabrication of the helical rod In this study, we used the elastomer HTV-4000 (Young’s modulus EHTV = 0.9 MPa and mass density ρHTV = 1.15 g/cm3) to create a flexible helical rod as a model for a bacterial flagellar filament. To create a mold for a helical rod of isotropic cros...

    2000

  54. [62]

    Sphere-dropping method The shear viscosityη of glycerin at T = 19.2◦ C was determined by measuring the terminal velocity of a free-falling small sphere of mass densityρ = 7.42 g/cm3 and radiusa = 2.5 mm. At this low Reynolds number (Re =ρU∞(2a)/η≈ 11 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 2...

  55. [63]

    Measurement of a shape-dependent friction According to the resistive force theory, when a straight rod of radius a and length L moves along its long axis at a constant velocity U, the viscous resistance F∥ acting on the rod from a fluid of viscosity η is given by [6] F∥ = 2πηL...

  56. [64]

    The viscosity at 292 K was measured using the sphere-dropping method (see Sec

    Temperature dependence of viscosity Figure 9 (c) shows the results of the viscosity measurements at various temperatures. The viscosity at 292 K was measured using the sphere-dropping method (see Sec. C 1), and the data at other temperatures were obtained using the force measu...

    2024

  57. [65]

    The gray solid line shows the raw experimental data, whereas the red symbols represent the same experimental data subjected to the low-pass filtering at 10 Hz

    as a function of the rescaled extensionz/L. The gray solid line shows the raw experimental data, whereas the red symbols represent the same experimental data subjected to the low-pass filtering at 10 Hz. The blue solid line shows the analytical prediction given in Eq. (D4), wi...

  58. [66]

    Uniaxial stretching test of a helix A 15 cm × 15 cm × 0.5 cm steel plate was placed at the bottom of a 15 cm × 15 cm × 40 cm water tank and immersed in glycerin [Fig. 10 (a)]. We tied the both ends of the helix with thin threads (of negligible twist moduli) to short rigid magn...

  59. [67]

    In the Cartesian coordinate system xyz defined in Fig

    Uniform refractive index case In the following, we describe our method of computing the tip position of rod P: ( X,Y,Z ) from the photographic images of C1,2. In the Cartesian coordinate system xyz defined in Fig. 12 (a), the positions of two cameras are given 15 L i C i A i Q...

  60. [68]

    Because the refractive index of the acrylic wall is 1.49 and is quite similar to that of glycerin, these are treated as the single background medium of the refractive index n

    Different refractive indices case The above formulation should be slightly modified to consider the refractive index of glycerin n = 1.47 at 20◦, although the corrections of this to the final results become subtle. Because the refractive index of the acrylic wall is 1.49 and i...

Pith tools

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