Atomic Force Microscopy Measurement of Heterogeneity in Bacterial Surface Hydrophobicity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The structure and physicochemical properties of microbial surfaces at the molecular level determine their adhesion to surfaces and interfaces. Here, we report the use of atomic force microscopy (AFM) to explore the morphology of soft, living cells in aqueous buffer, to map bacterial surface heterogeneities, and to directly correlate the results in the AFM force-distance curves to the macroscopic properties of the microbial surfaces. The surfaces of two bacterial species, Acinetobacter venetianus RAG-1 and Rhodococcus erythropolis 20S-E1-c, showing different macroscopic surface hydrophobicity were probed with chemically functionalized AFM tips, terminating in hydrophobic and hydrophilic groups. All force measurements were obtained in contact mode and made on a location of the bacterium selected from the alternating current mode image. AFM imaging revealed morphological details of the microbial-surface ultrastructures with about 20 nm resolution. The heterogeneous surface morphology was directly correlated with differences in adhesion forces as revealed by retraction force curves and also with the presence of external structures, either pili or capsules, as confirmed by transmission electron microscopy. The AFM force curves for both bacterial species showed differences in the interactions of extracellular structures with hydrophilic and hydrophobic tips. A. venetianus RAG-1 showed an irregular pattern with multiple adhesion peaks suggesting the presence of biopolymers with different lengths on its surface. R. erythropolis 20S-E1-c exhibited long-range attraction forces and single rupture events suggesting a more hydrophobic and smoother surface. The adhesion force measurements indicated a patchy surface distribution of interaction forces for both bacterial species, with the highest forces grouped at one pole of the cell for R. erythropolis 20S-E1-c and a random distribution of adhesion forces in the case of A. venetianus RAG-1. The magnitude of the adhesion forces was proportional to the three-phase contact angle between hexadecane and water on the bacterial surfaces.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".