Misalignment between the magnetic dipole moment and the cell axis in the magnetotactic bacterium <i>Magnetospirillum magneticum</i> AMB-1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While most quantitative studies of the motion of magnetotactic bacteria rely on the premise that the cells' magnetic dipole moment is aligned with their direction of motility, this assumption has so far rarely been challenged. Here we use phase contrast microscopy to detect the rotational diffusion of non-motile cells of Magnetospirillum magneticum AMB-1 around their magnetic moment, showing that in this species the magnetic dipole moment is, in fact, not exactly aligned with the cell body axis. From the cell rotational trajectories, we are able to infer the misalignment between cell magnetic moment and body axis with a precision of better than 1°, showing that it is, on average, 6°, and can be as high as 20°. We propose a method to correct for this misalignment, and perform a non-biased measurement of the magnetic moment of single cells based on the analysis of their orientation distribution. Using this correction, we show that magnetic moment strongly correlates with cell length. The existence of a range of misalignments between magnetic moment and cell axis in a population implies that the orientation and trajectories of magnetotactic bacteria placed in external magnetic fields is more complex than generally assumed, and might show some important cell-to-cell differences.
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) | 0.000 | 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".