Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 59 references

Diffusion of Tracer Particles in Early Growing Biofilms. A Computer Simulation Study

T0 review · 5 major / 4 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 Colony expansion, not thermal motion, controls long-time tracer drift in young biofilms.

desk verdict Solid simulation study giving a clear two-regime picture of tracer transport in growing biofilms, but the load-bearing mstart=100 release threshold is acknowledged yet untested. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17653 v1 pith:ZOTS4WJL submitted 2025-06-21 cond-mat.soft physics.bio-ph

Fabian A. Garcia Daza , Alvaro Rodriguez-Rivas , Fernando Govantes , Alejandro Cuetos This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.softphysics.bio-ph
keywords tracerdiffusionbiofilmBrowniandynamicsindividual-basedmodelmicrorheologymeansquareddisplacementsubdiffusioncolonygrowth
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 tries to establish a two-regime law for how a passive tracer moves inside a growing bacterial colony during its early, quasi-two-dimensional stage. On short time scales the tracer diffuses normally through the spaces between bacteria, with a diffusion coefficient that decreases as the colony ages and compacts. On long time scales, the colony's exponential biomass growth creates an outward drag field, so the tracer's mean squared displacement grows exponentially in time and linearly in biomass, and this long-time curve is independent of tracer size within each growth regime. The notable exception is very small tracers in loose, slowly growing colonies, which slip through the structure and escape. If true, this gives a predictive transport rule for nanoparticles, antibiotics, and viruses in early biofilms and a way to read the mechanical feel of a growing colony from tracer motion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the exponential-growth drag field: if a colony's area obeys $dA/dt = kA$, then every subregion expands by the same law, producing an outward velocity $dR/dt = kR/2$ at radial distance $R$ from the colony center. That single relation converts exponential biomass growth into the prediction $\langle \Delta r^2 \rangle \propto \exp(kt) \propto m(t)$, which the simulations confirm. The computational machinery is an individual-based model (IbM) of spherocylinder bacteria that grow and divide, a spherical tracer interacting through a truncated Kihara potential, Brownian dynamics integration, and the generalized Stokes–Einstein relation used to convert MSD curves into storage and loss moduli.

What would settle it

Run the same simulation with the tracer released at a much smaller or much larger colony size; if the claimed linear-in-biomass scaling does not persist, the release threshold is load-bearing. In the lab, track a tracer in a confined two-dimensional growing colony and decompose its motion into radial and tangential parts; the claim fails if the radial mean squared displacement grows as a power law rather than exponentially at long times.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in early-stage biofilms, growth-induced advection replaces thermal diffusion as the dominant long-time transport mechanism for embedded tracers. Because biomass grows as $m(t) \simeq \exp(rt)$, the colony area grows at a rate proportional to itself, and any interior point experiences an outward radial velocity $dR/dt = kR/2$. This drag makes the long-time mean squared displacement (MSD) scale as $\langle \Delta r^2 \rangle \propto \exp(kt) \propto m(t)$, with the same curve for tracers differing by three orders of magnitude in size within a given growth regime. The radial component of the MSD is exponential while the tangential component is subdiffusive, showing that the tracer is carried outward by colony expansion while Brownian collisions drive sideways motion. Only for the smallest tracers ($d_t = 10^{-2}\sigma$ and $10^{-3}\sigma$) in the most open colonies ($\Gamma = 0.1$) does the tracer escape the drag and behave as a Brownian particle in an elastic structure. The same MSD data, converted through the generalized Stokes–Einstein relation, yield elastic and viscous moduli: the growing colony reads mostly as a viscous fluid, except for small tracers in loose colonies at low frequency, which see an elastic response.

Load-bearing premise

The tracer is held still until the colony has grown to a fixed size, and the study does not test how that starting point changes the result; if either the short-time diffusion coefficient or the long-time exponential scaling shifts with release time, the two-regime law may be specific to that threshold.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At long times, tracer displacement in a growing colony is set by the biomass growth rate, so transport estimates for antibiotics or nanoparticles in early biofilms can use the colony's growth kinetics rather than only local viscosity.
  • In compact colonies ($\Gamma = 10$ and $1$), the long-time MSD is essentially independent of tracer size, so one advection law covers tracers from nanometers to the size of a bacterium.
  • Very small tracers in loose colonies ($\Gamma = 0.1$, $d_t \le 10^{-2}\sigma$) escape the colony, so size-based filtering of nanoparticles is strongest in open, slowly growing microcolonies.
  • Passive microrheology of the growing colony reports a predominantly viscous response, with an elastic response only for small tracers in loose colonies at low frequencies; because the underlying equilibrium assumptions may not hold in an active growing system, these moduli should be read qualitatively.
  • The mechanism implies that reported long-time 'superdiffusive' tracer motion in growing cell collectives such as cancer spheroids may actually be exponential in time; checking the functional form would tell whether the same growth-drag mechanism is at work.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that re-plotting existing tracer data from growing tissues as log MSD against biomass, not time, would separate growth drag from other active transport: a straight line would indicate the same mechanism.
  • I infer a concrete simulation test of the untested release-time choice: vary $m_{\mathrm{start}}$ and check whether the short-time diffusion coefficient and the exponential prefactor shift; if they do, the two-regime law needs a release-time correction.
  • I infer that adding the extracellular polymeric substance (EPS) matrix, which the model omits, would slow short-time diffusion and likely suppress escape of small tracers in loose colonies, changing the escape thresholds.
  • I infer that because the drag velocity grows with distance from the colony center, a tracer starting off-center should escape more readily than the centrally seeded tracers studied here; off-center seeding is a direct way to test the geometry of the drag field.
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

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports Brownian dynamics simulations of a passive spherical tracer inside a growing two-dimensional bacterial microcolony, using an individual-based model calibrated to Pseudomonas putida. Tracers of four diameters (dt = 10^-3σ to σ) are held fixed until the colony biomass reaches mstart = 100 and then followed in three growth regimes Γ = 10, 1, 0.1. The main findings are: (i) at short times the tracer MSD is linear in time, with an effective diffusion coefficient that depends on tracer size and weakly on colony age; (ii) at long times the radial MSD grows exponentially in time and linearly in biomass, independently of tracer size for compact colonies, while the tangential MSD is subdiffusive; (iii) small tracers in loose colonies (Γ = 0.1) escape and show a different behavior; and (iv) passive microrheology via the Mason relation yields a mostly viscous-like response, with an elastic regime for small tracers in loose colonies. The central mechanistic claim is that colony expansion creates an outward radial drag that dominates long-time transport, with Brownian motion contributing mainly in the tangential direction.

Significance. If the central result holds, the paper makes a useful contribution by identifying growth-induced advection, rather than thermal diffusion, as the dominant long-time transport mechanism for tracers in early biofilms, with implications for nanoparticle and antibiotic transport and for interpreting microrheology in active growing cell communities. Strengths include the direct simulation of 1000 independent trajectories per case, the use of an established agent-based model with parameters fixed in earlier work, and an explicit statement of the model's limitations. The exponential/linear-in-biomass scaling and the exception for small tracers in loose colonies are concrete, falsifiable predictions that could be tested experimentally. However, the main quantitative claims are currently supported mostly by visual collapses without fitted parameters or error bars, and they depend on a single release threshold mstart = 100 whose influence is acknowledged but not tested.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section II, mstart = 100] The text explicitly states that tracer dynamics are expected to depend on mstart, yet no mstart variation is reported. Because mstart sets the local packing fraction, pressure, and cavity connectivity at release, it directly controls both the short-time effective diffusion coefficient and whether small tracers in loose colonies escape before the long-time advective regime develops. I request a sensitivity analysis (e.g., mstart = 50, 200, 500) for at least one compact and one loose growth regime and two tracer sizes, reporting Deff and the long-time scaling parameters; without this, the universality of the two-regime description is not established.
  2. [Section III.A and Figs. 2-3] The MSD averages are conditioned on the tracer remaining inside the colony at every time step, and Fig. 6 shows that for Γ = 0.1 and dt ≤ 10^-2σ the survival probability p(t) drops to zero almost immediately after release. The long-time MSD for these cases is therefore computed over a rapidly shrinking and increasingly unrepresentative subensemble. Please report the number of surviving trajectories as a function of m(t) or t - t0, provide confidence intervals or bootstrap errors on the MSD, and quantify the conditioning bias, e.g., by comparing with an average that includes trajectories up to their first escape. This is essential because the exponential scaling claim rests on the behavior of the survivors.
  3. [Fig. 2 and its inset] The central quantitative claim is that at long times ⟨Δr²⟩ ∝ m(t) ∝ exp(kt), and that this behavior is independent of tracer size. The evidence currently is the visual alignment of data with the unlabelled dashed lines '~ b m(t)' and '~ e^{kt}'. No fitted values of b or k, no confidence intervals, and no comparison with the independently known growth rate r are given. Please fit the long-time regime for each Γ and tracer size, report the fitted exponents or rates with uncertainties, and define k in terms of the model parameters. This would turn the collapse claim from a visual statement into a quantitative result.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (1)] The tracer-bacterium interaction strength ε_tr = 10 kBT is a free parameter, and no sensitivity analysis or physical justification is provided for this value. Since the escape probability and the short-time Deff both depend on the steric repulsion between the tracer and surrounding rods, a variation of ε_tr (e.g., 1 kBT and 100 kBT) for a representative case would help establish that the two-regime picture does not hinge on this choice.
  5. [Section III.B, Eqs. (14)-(16)] The generalized Stokes-Einstein relation used to compute G' and G'' assumes equilibrium linear response and a passive thermal tracer. In the growing colony, the tracer's long-time radial motion is dominated by non-equilibrium advection, so the interpretation of Fig. 5 as the viscoelastic moduli of the biofilm is conceptually strained. The authors do acknowledge that the analysis is qualitative, but the text still refers to 'the elastic and viscous moduli of the growing microcolony' without discussing how the advective contribution is separated from the thermal part in Eq. (14). Please either restrict the MR interpretation to time or frequency windows where the tracer motion is diffusive and thermal, or add an explicit discussion of why the GSE remains approximately valid under growth-induced drag.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] Several typos should be corrected: 'Manson' should be 'Mason' (Section III.B), 'Boltzmamn constant' should be 'Boltzmann constant', and 'unit ot time' should be 'unit of time' (Section II).
  2. [Eq. (14)] The gamma function Γ[1 + α(ω)] uses the same symbol as the growth-regime parameter Γ; this notational collision should be removed, for example by using a different letter for the gamma function.
  3. [Fig. 6, right panel] The horizontal axis is labeled 'dt', but the reader must infer that it is the tracer diameter normalized by σ; please label it explicitly as dt/σ and add units.
  4. [References [22] and [56]] References [22] and [56] are the same paper (Sinha, Samanta, and Thirumalai, Soft Matter 19, 5385 (2023)) and should be consolidated.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the long-time MSD scaling is a directly measured simulation output; the growth-drag argument is a post hoc rationalization, and self-citations to the IbM model are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central result—that at long times the tracer MSD grows linearly with biomass and exponentially in time, with a tracer-size-independent collapse at fixed Γ—is an observable computed from Brownian dynamics trajectories (Eq. 11 and Figs. 2–3), not a fitted parameter or a quantity defined in terms of the claimed explanation. The growth-drag picture (dA/dt = kA, dR/dt = kR/2, hence MSD ~ exp(kt) ~ m(t)) is presented as a hypothesis to be tested against those trajectories and does not enter the equations of motion; it is therefore an interpretive rationalization rather than a self-fulfilling input. Self-citations to the authors' earlier IbM model [40–43] and to the Γ parameterization [40, 42] set up the simulation protocol, but the tracer statistics are not cited from those works and are generated here. The microrheology moduli are computed from the MSD via the generalized Stokes–Einstein relation (Eqs. 14–16), so statements that G′ and G″ are 'consistent' with MSD behavior are transformations, not independent predictions; the paper does not use them to derive the MSD. The acknowledged unvaried mstart = 100 is a robustness limitation and a possible generalization risk, but it is not circular: the result for that release time is a genuine measurement. No load-bearing step reduces by construction or by self-citation to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central simulation results rest on the chosen model parameters, especially the tracer-rod interaction strength and the biomass threshold at which the tracer is released, plus domain assumptions about 2D geometry, steric-only interactions, implicit solvent, and the validity of microrheology formulas in a growing system.

free parameters (2)
  • Tracer-rod interaction strength epsilon_tr = 10 kBT
    Chosen for steric interactions; no sensitivity analysis; affects escape and drag of tracer.
  • Initial biomass threshold mstart = 100
    Time when tracer is released; authors state dynamics expected to depend on this but did not analyze it.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Biofilm growth is two-dimensional and bacteria are modeled as spherocylinders with a Kihara potential.
    Early-stage biofilms are approximated as 2D; this excludes 3D effects.
  • domain assumption Implicit-solvent Brownian dynamics with no hydrodynamic interactions.
    Standard for this class of simulation; neglects solvent-mediated forces.
  • domain assumption Biomass density remains uniform and constant during growth, used to derive the drag velocity field.
    Invoked in Section III A to derive MSD ~ exp(kt); supported by previous work but not directly verified here.
  • domain assumption Mason's microrheology approximation assumes linear response and equilibrium.
    Used to compute G' and G''; authors acknowledge may not hold in growing biofilm.
  • domain assumption Bacterial growth is exponential with a Gaussian-distributed rate.
    Based on experimental observations and previous model works.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffusion of Tracer Particles in Early Growing Biofilms. A Computer Simulation Study." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZOTS4WJL

@misc{pith2026250617653,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffusion of Tracer Particles in Early Growing Biofilms. A Computer Simulation Study},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZOTS4WJL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17653}
}
read the original abstract

The diffusion of particles in complex media has gained significant interest due to its dual relevance: probing the viscoelastic properties of materials via microrheology and assessing the extent of particle displacement over time. In this work, we explore the early-stage diffusion of a tracer particle within a developing bacterial biofilm using implicit-solvent Brownian dynamics simulations. At these initial stages, bacterial colonies form two-dimensional structures that expand through cell growth and division. Employing an agent-based computational model (IbM), we analyse the passive diffusion of a spherical tracer within colonies of varying compaction levels. Our findings reveal that, at very short timescales, tracer diffusion follows a standard diffusive regime, modulated by colony ageing. However, at longer times, the dominant factor governing tracer motion is colony growth, which effectively confines the tracer within the expanding structure, except in cases where the microcolony is highly unstructured or the tracer is sufficiently small. Additionally, through MR techniques, we quantify the elastic and viscous moduli of the growing microcolony, offering insight into its evolving viscoelastic behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17653 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Representative snapshots of a tracer with a diameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The mean-squared displacements (MSDs) of tracers wi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Mean squared displacements (MSDs) for both the radia [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Short-term mean-squared displacements of tracers w [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Viscous ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. probability of a tracer staying within the colony, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Maria Zambrano

    Previous studies have shown that Γ is a suitable indicator of the regime in which the biofilm evolv es [40, 42]. Specifically, for high Γ values, the biofilm initially forms as a compact str ucture, where bacterial cells grow and divide in close proximity. By contrast, as Γ decreases, this compact ness diminishes, particularly in microcolonies with a small n...

  2. [2]

    W. M. Saltzman, Diffusion in biological systems, in Drug Delivery: Engineering Principles for Drug Therapy (Oxford University Press, 2001)

    work page 2001

  3. [3]

    Zhang and M

    L. Zhang and M. Fang, Nanomaterials in pollution trace de tection and environmental improvement, Nano Today 5, 128 (2010)

    work page 2010

  4. [4]

    Coppens, T

    B. Coppens, T. E. Belpaire, J. Peˇ sek, H. P. Steenackers,H. Ramon, and B. Smeets, Anomalous diffusion of nanoparticle s in the spatially heterogeneous biofilm environment, iScien ce 26, 106861 (2023)

    work page 2023

  5. [5]

    N. T. Ouellette, Particle-based measurement technique s for soft matter, in Experimental and Computational Techniques in Soft Condensed Matter Physics , edited by J. Olafsen (Cambridge University Press, 2010) p. 180–208

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Jardat, V

    M. Jardat, V. Dahirel, and P. Illien, Diffusion of a tracer in a dense mixture of soft particles connected to different thermostats, Phys. Rev. E 106, 064608 (2022)

    work page 2022

  7. [7]

    Mason, H

    T. Mason, H. Gang, and D. Weitz, Rheology of complex fluids measured by dynamic light scattering, Journal of Molecular Structure 383, 81 (1996), horizons in Small Angle Scattering From Mesosco pic Systems

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    A. M. Puertas and T. Voigtmann, Microrheology of colloid al systems, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter 26, 243101 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 59 references
  1. [9]

    T. G. Mason and D. A. Weitz, Optical measurements of frequ ency-dependent linear viscoelastic moduli of complex fluid s, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 1250 (1995)

    1995

  2. [10]

    T. G. Mason, Estimating the viscoelastic moduli of compl ex fluids using the generalized Stokes–Einstein equation, R heo- logica Acta 39, 371 (2000)

    2000

  3. [11]

    T. M. Squires and J. F. Brady, A simple paradigm for activ e and nonlinear microrheology, Physics of Fluids 17, 073101 (2005)

    2005

  4. [12]

    Kuhnhold and W

    A. Kuhnhold and W. Paul, Active one-particle microrheo logy of an unentangled polymer melt studied by molecular dynamics simulation, Phys. Rev. E 91, 042601 (2015)

    2015

  5. [13]

    F. A. G. Daza, A. M. Puertas, A. Cuetos, and A. Patti, Micr orheology of colloidal suspensions via dynamic monte carlo simulations, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 605, 182 (2022)

    2022

  6. [14]

    F. A. G. Daza, A. M. Puertas, A. Cuetos, and A. Patti, Micr orheology of isotropic and liquid-crystalline phases of ha rd rods by dynamic monte carlo simulations, Journal of Molecul ar Liquids 365, 120146 (2022)

    2022

  7. [15]

    F. A. G. Daza, A. M. Puertas, A. Cuetos, and A. Patti, Insi ght into the viscoelasticity of self-assembling smectic li quid crystals of colloidal rods from active microrheology simul ations, Journal of Chemical Theory and Computacion 20, 1579 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    F. A. G. Daza, A. M. Puertas, A. Cuetos, and A. Patti, Supe rdiffusion and heterogeneous dynamics in liquid crystals by microrheology, Molecular Physics , e2396546 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Amblard, A

    F. Amblard, A. C. Maggs, B. Yurke, A. N. Pargellis, and S. Leibler, Subdiffusion and anomalous local viscoelasticity in actin networks, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 4470 (1996)

    1996

  10. [18]

    J. A. Cribb, T. D. Meehan, S. M. Shah, K. Skinner, and R. Su perfine, Cylinders vs. Spheres: Biofluid Shear Thinning in Driven Nanoparticle Transport, in Annals of Biomedical Engineering , Vol. 38 (2010) pp. 3311–3322

    2010

  11. [19]

    Medronho, A

    B. Medronho, A. Filipe, C. Costa, A. Romano, B. Lindman, H. Edlund, and M. Norgren, Microrheology of novel cellulose stabilized oil-in-water emulsions, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 531, 225 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Feneberg, M

    W. Feneberg, M. Westphal, and E. Sackmann, Dictyosteli um cells’ cytoplasm as an active viscoplastic body, Europea n Biophysics Journal 30, 284 (2001)

    2001

  13. [21]

    Watts, L

    F. Watts, L. E. Tan, C. G. Wilson, J. M. Girkin, M. Tassier i, and A. J. Wright, Investigating the micro-rheology of the vitreous humor using an optically trapped local probe, Jour nal of Optics 16, 015301 (2013). 13

    2013

  14. [22]

    J. W. Hart, T. A. Waigh, J. R. Lu, and I. S. Roberts, Micror heology and Spatial Heterogeneity of Staphylococcus aureu s Biofilms Modulated by Hydrodynamic Shear and Biofilm-Degrad ing Enzymes, Langmuir 35, 3553 (2019)

    2019

  15. [24]

    Weihs, T

    D. Weihs, T. G. Mason, and M. A. Teitell, Bio-microrheol ogy: A frontier in microrheology, Biophysical Journal 91, 4296 (2006)

    2006

  16. [25]

    S. S. Rogers, C. van der Walle, and T. A. Waigh, Microrheo logy of Bacterial Biofilms In Vitro: Staphylococcus aureus a nd Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Langmuir 24, 13549 (2008)

    2008

  17. [26]

    S. B. Yuste, E. Abad, and C. Escudero, Diffusion in an expa nding medium: Fokker-planck equation, green’s function, a nd first-passage properties, Phys. Rev. E 94, 032118 (2016)

    2016

  18. [27]

    E. Abad, C. N. Angstmann, B. I. Henry, A. V. McGann, F. Le V ot, and S. B. Yuste, Reaction-diffusion and reaction- subdiffusion equations on arbitrarily evolving domains, Ph ys. Rev. E 102, 032111 (2020)

    2020

  19. [28]

    Y. Chen, X. Wang, and W. Wang, Langevin picture of subdiff usion in nonuniformly expanding medium, Chaos 33, 113133 (2023)

    2023

  20. [29]

    Wirtz, Particle-tracking microrheology of living c ells: Principles and applications, Annual Review of Biophy sics 38, 301 (2009)

    D. Wirtz, Particle-tracking microrheology of living c ells: Principles and applications, Annual Review of Biophy sics 38, 301 (2009)

    2009

  21. [30]

    Birjiniuk, N

    A. Birjiniuk, N. Billings, E. Nance, J. Hanes, K. Ribbec k, and P. S. Doyle, Single particle tracking reveals spatial and dynamic organization of the Escherichia coli biofilm matrix, New Journal of Physics 16, 085014 (2014)

    2014

  22. [31]

    Koszto/suppress lowicz and R

    T. Koszto/suppress lowicz and R. Metzler, Diffusion of antibiotics through a biofilm in the presence of diffusion and absorptio n barriers, Phys. Rev. E 102, 032408 (2020)

    2020

  23. [32]

    Fulaz, S

    S. Fulaz, S. Vitale, L. Quinn, and E. Casey, Nanoparticl e–biofilm interactions: The role of the eps matrix, Trends in Microbiology 27, 915 (2019)

    2019

  24. [33]

    Lahonian, Diffusion of magnetic nanoparticles withi n a biological tissue during magnetic fluid hyperthermia, in Hyper- thermia, edited by N

    M. Lahonian, Diffusion of magnetic nanoparticles withi n a biological tissue during magnetic fluid hyperthermia, in Hyper- thermia, edited by N. Huilgol (IntechOpen, Rijeka, 2013) Chap. 4

    2013

  25. [34]

    T. Yuan, L. Gao, W. Zhan, and D. Dini, Effect of particle si ze and surface charge on nanoparticles diffusion in the brain white matter, Pharmaceutical Research 39, 767 (2022)

    2022

  26. [35]

    Richardson, The nature of c-s-h in hardened cements, Cement and Concrete Research 29, 1131 (1999)

    I. Richardson, The nature of c-s-h in hardened cements, Cement and Concrete Research 29, 1131 (1999)

    1999

  27. [36]

    R. J.-M. Pellenq, A. Kushima, R. Shahsavari, K. J. V. Vli et, M. J. Buehler, S. Yip, and F.-J. Ulm, A realistic molecula r model of cement hydrates, Proceedings of the National Acade my of Sciences 106, 16102 (2009)

    2009

  28. [37]

    Berger, J

    T. Berger, J. A. Anta, and V. Morales-Fl´ orez, Surface p roperties of anatase tio2 nanowire films grown from a fluoride - containing solution, ChemPhysChem 14, 1676 (2013)

    2013

  29. [38]

    M. A. A. Grant, B. Wac/suppress law, R. J. Allen, and P. Cicuta, Therole of mechanical forces in the planar-to-bulk transition in growing Escherichia coli microcolonies, Journal of The Royal Society Interface 11, 20140400 (2014)

    2014

  30. [39]

    Su, C.-T

    P.-T. Su, C.-T. Liao, J.-R. Roan, S.-H. Wang, A. Chiou, a nd W.-J. Syu, Bacterial colony from two-dimensional divisi on to three-dimensional development, PLOS ONE 7, 1 (2012)

    2012

  31. [40]

    Volfson, S

    D. Volfson, S. Cookson, J. Hasty, and L. S. Tsimring, Bio mechanical ordering of dense cell populations, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105, 15346 (2008)

    2008

  32. [41]

    R. D. Acemel, F. Govantes, and A. Cuetos, Computer simul ation study of early bacterial biofilm development, Sci. Rep . 8, 5340 (2018)

    2018

  33. [42]

    F. J. Lobo-Cabrera, A. Patti, F. Govantes, and A. Cuetos , Polymer-induced microcolony compaction in early biofilms : A computer simulation study, Phys. Rev. E 103, 052407 (2021)

    2021

  34. [43]

    Delgado-Campos and A

    A. Delgado-Campos and A. Cuetos, Influence of homeostat ic mechanisms of bacterial growth and division on structura l properties of microcolonies: A computer simulation study, Phys. Rev. E 106, 034402 (2022)

    2022

  35. [44]

    F. J. Lobo-Cabrera, M. d. R. Herrero, F. Govantes, and A. Cuetos, Computer simulation study of nutrient-driven bacterial biofilm stratification, Journal of The Royal Society Interfa ce 21, 20230618 (2024)

    2024

  36. [45]

    N. J. Palleroni, Pseudomonas, in Bergey’s Manual of Systematics of Archaea and Bacteria (John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2015) pp. 1–1

    2015

  37. [46]

    Facchetti, B

    G. Facchetti, B. Knapp, F. Chang, and M. Howard, Reasses sment of the basis of cell size control based on analysis of cell-to-cell variability, Biophysical Journal 117, 1728 (2019)

    2019

  38. [47]

    F. Si, G. Le Treut, J. T. Sauls, S. Vadia, P. A. Levin, and S . Jun, Mechanistic origin of cell-size control and homeosta sis in bacteria, Current Biology 29, 1760 (2019)

    2019

  39. [48]

    Taheri-Araghi, S

    S. Taheri-Araghi, S. Bradde, J. Sauls, N. Hill, P. Levin , J. Paulsson, M. Vergassola, and S. Jun, Cell-size control a nd homeostasis in bacteria, Current Biology 25, 385 (2015)

    2015

  40. [49]

    Vega and S

    C. Vega and S. Lago, A fast algorithm to evaluate the shor test distance between rods, Comput. Chem. 18, 55 (1994)

    1994

  41. [50]

    L¨ owen, Brownian dynamics of hard spherocylinders,Phys

    H. L¨ owen, Brownian dynamics of hard spherocylinders,Phys. Rev. E 50, 1232 (1994)

    1994

  42. [51]

    Vega and S

    C. Vega and S. Lago, Molecular dynamics study of propane using two simple potential models, The Journal of Chemical Physics 93, 8171 (1990)

    1990

  43. [52]

    Bonet Avalos, J

    J. Bonet Avalos, J. Rub´ ı, D. Bedeaux, and G. van der Zwan, Friction coefficients of axisymmetric particles in suspens ion, Phys. A 211, 193 (1994)

    1994

  44. [53]

    J. G. Thomas and L. A. Nakaishi, Managing the complexity of a dynamic biofilm, The Journal of the American Dental Association 137, S10 (2006)

    2006

  45. [54]

    J. W. Costerton, Z. Lewandowski, D. E. Caldwell, D. R. Ko rber, and H. M. Lappin-Scott, Microbial biofilms, Annual Review of Microbiology 49, 711 (1995)

    1995

  46. [55]

    I. M. Sokolov, Models of anomalous diffusion in crowded e nvironments, Soft Matter 8, 9043 (2012). 14

    2012

  47. [56]

    M. Bier, R. van Roij, M. Dijkstra, and P. van der Schoot, S elf diffusion of particles in complex fluids : temporary cages and permanent barriers, Physical Review Letters 101, 1 (2008)

    2008

  48. [57]

    Sinha, H

    S. Sinha, H. Samanta, and D. Thirumalai, Observe without disturbing: tracer particles sense local stresses in cell collectives without affecting the cancer cell dynamics, Soft Matter 19, 5385 (2023)

    2023

  49. [58]

    B. A. Krajina, B. L. LeSavage, J. G. Roth, A. W. Zhu, P. C. C ai, A. J. Spakowitz, and S. C. Heilshorn, Microrheology reveals simultaneous cell-mediated matrix stiffening and fluidization that underlie breast cancer invasion, Science Advances 7, eabe1969 (2021)

    2021

  50. [59]

    V. M. Worlitzer, A. Jose, I. Grinberg, M. B¨ ar, S. Heiden reich, A. Eldar, G. Ariel, and A. Be’er, Biophysical aspects underlying the swarm to biofilm transition, Science Advance s 8, eabn8152 (2022)

    2022

  51. [60]

    T. A. Waigh and N. Korabel, Heterogeneous anomalous tra nsport in cellular and molecular biology, Reports on Progre ss in Physics 86, 126601 (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

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