MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2321237113 · doi:10.3934/mbe.2013.10.399

Competition of motile and immotile bacterial strains in a petri dish

2013· article· en· W2321237113 on OpenAlexaff
Silogini Thanarajah, Hao Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Biosciences & Engineering · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematical Biology Tumor Growth
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPetri dishMotilityCompetition (biology)ChemotaxisBiologyBacteriaBiological systemStrain (injury)MicrobiologyEcologyCell biologyReceptorAnatomyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Bacterial competition is an important component in many practical applications such as plant roots colonization and medicine (especially in dental plaque). Bacterial motility has two types of mechanisms -- directed movement (chemotaxis) and undirected movement. We study undirected bacterial movement mathematically and numerically which is rarely considered in literature. To study bacterial competition in a petri dish, we modify and extend the model used in Wei et al. (2011) to obtain a group of more general and realistic PDE models. We explicitly consider the nutrients and incorporate two bacterial strains characterized by motility. We use different nutrient media such as agar and liquid in the theoretical framework to discuss the results of competition. The consistency of our numerical simulations and experimental data suggest the importance of modeling undirected motility in bacteria. In agar the motile strain has a higher total density than the immotile strain, while in liquid both strains have similar total densities. Furthermore, we nd that in agar as bacterial motility increases, the extinction time of the motile bacteria decreases without competition but increases in competition. In addition, we show the existence of traveling-wave solutions mathematically and numerically.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.885

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations3
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Biosciences & EngineeringSame topicMathematical Biology Tumor GrowthFrench-language works237,207