A Novel Magnetic Field Device: Effects of Magnetic Fields on Planktonic Yeasts and Fungal Mats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Microorganisms evolved within the geomagnetic field and can be affected by magnetic field exposure. However, the mechanisms underlying many magnetic phenomena in microbes remain to be elucidated. We develop a 3D-printed magnetic field exposure device to perform experiments on microbes. This device is designed in AutoCAD, modeled in COMSOL, and validated using a Gaussmeter. Using the magnetic field exposure device, we perform static magnetic field experiments on different strains of the budding yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae . We find that static magnetic field exposure slows the spatially-structured expansion of yeast mats that expands in two dimensions, but not yeast mats that expand in three dimensions, across the surface of semi-solid media. We also find that magnetic fields do not affect the growth of yeast cells in well-mixed liquid media. This study provides a novel device for magnetic field exposure experiments on microorganisms and advances our understanding of the effects of magnetic fields on fungi. Why it matters Microorganisms have evolved to function, survive, and reproduce in Earth’s magnetic field. However, the mechanisms underlying magnetic phenomena in microorganisms are unknown. This is especially true for fungi, which are important microorganisms for microbiological research, industrial application, and infectious disease. To elucidate mechanisms driving magnetic phenomena, we need devices to perform controlled experiments in a variety of conditions. We develop a 3D-printed magnetic field exposure device using computer-aided design, physics modeling software, and a magnetometer. Using this novel magnetic field device, we discover that magnetic fields can slow the growth of yeast on agar plates, but that magnetic fields do not affect the growth of yeast in liquid media.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".