A Comparison of Methods to Measure the Magnetic Moment of Magnetotactic Bacteria through Analysis of Their Trajectories in External Magnetic Fields
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Magnetotactic bacteria possess organelles called magnetosomes that confer a magnetic moment on the cells, resulting in their partial alignment with external magnetic fields. Here we show that analysis of the trajectories of cells exposed to an external magnetic field can be used to measure the average magnetic dipole moment of a cell population in at least five different ways. We apply this analysis to movies of Magnetospirillum magneticum AMB-1 cells, and compare the values of the magnetic moment obtained in this way to that obtained by direct measurements of magnetosome dimension from electron micrographs. We find that methods relying on the viscous relaxation of the cell orientation give results comparable to that obtained by magnetosome measurements, whereas methods relying on statistical mechanics assumptions give systematically lower values of the magnetic moment. Since the observed distribution of magnetic moments in the population is not sufficient to explain this discrepancy, our results suggest that non-thermal random noise is present in the system, implying that a magnetotactic bacterial population should not be considered as similar to a paramagnetic material.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".