Hydrophilic Mechano-Bactericidal Nanopillars Require External Forces to Rapidly Kill Bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Nanopillars have been shown to mechanically damage bacteria, suggesting a promising strategy for future antibacterial surfaces. However, the mechanisms underlying this phenomena remain unclear, which ultimately limits translational potential toward real-world applications. Using real-time and end-point analysis techniques, we demonstrate that in contrast to initial expectations, bacteria on multiple hydrophilic "mechano-bactericidal" surfaces remained viable unless exposed to a moving air-liquid interface, which caused considerable cell death. Reasoning that normal forces arising from surface tension may underlie this mechano-bactericidal activity, we developed computational and experimental models to estimate, manipulate, and recreate the impact of these forces. Our experiments together demonstrate that a critical level of external force acting on cells attached to nanopillar surfaces can rapidly deform and rupture bacteria. These studies provide fundamental physical insight into how nanopillar surfaces can serve as effective antibacterial materials and suggest use-conditions under which such nanotechnology approaches may provide practical value.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".