MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142834334 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141654

An Element of Determinism in a Stochastic Flagellar Motor Switch

2015· article· en· W2142834334 on OpenAlexaff
Li Xie, Tuba Altindal, Xiao-Lun Wu

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicMicro and Nano Robotics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersDivision of Materials ResearchUniversity of PittsburghNational Science Foundation
KeywordsFlagellumVibrio alginolyticusClockwisePhysicsMotor proteinPolarRotary engineEscherichia coliVibrioBiophysicsBiologyControl theory (sociology)BacteriaComputer scienceCell biologyGeneticsOpticsMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Marine bacterium Vibrio alginolyticus uses a single polar flagellum to navigate in an aqueous environment. Similar to Escherichia coli cells, the polar flagellar motor has two states; when the motor is counter-clockwise, the cell swims forward and when the motor is clockwise, the cell swims backward. V. alginolyticus also incorporates a direction randomization step at the start of the forward swimming interval by flicking its flagellum. To gain an understanding on how the polar flagellar motor switch is regulated, distributions of the forward Δf and backward Δb intervals are investigated herein. We found that the steady-state probability density functions, P(Δf) and P(Δb), of freely swimming bacteria are strongly peaked at a finite time, suggesting that the motor switch is not Poissonian. The short-time inhibition is sufficiently strong and long lasting, i.e., several hundred milliseconds for both intervals, which is readily observed and characterized. Treating motor reversal dynamics as a first-passage problem, which results from conformation fluctuations of the motor switch, we calculated P(Δf) and P(Δb) and found good agreement with the measurements.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.200 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicMicro and Nano RoboticsFrench-language works237,207