↓ Skip to main content

Chemotaxis when Bacteria Remember: Drift versus Diffusion

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, December 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
85 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Chemotaxis when Bacteria Remember: Drift versus Diffusion
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, December 2011
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002283
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sakuntala Chatterjee, Rava Azeredo da Silveira, Yariv Kafri

Abstract

Escherichia coli (E. coli) bacteria govern their trajectories by switching between running and tumbling modes as a function of the nutrient concentration they experienced in the past. At short time one observes a drift of the bacterial population, while at long time one observes accumulation in high-nutrient regions. Recent work has viewed chemotaxis as a compromise between drift toward favorable regions and accumulation in favorable regions. A number of earlier studies assume that a bacterium resets its memory at tumbles - a fact not borne out by experiment - and make use of approximate coarse-grained descriptions. Here, we revisit the problem of chemotaxis without resorting to any memory resets. We find that when bacteria respond to the environment in a non-adaptive manner, chemotaxis is generally dominated by diffusion, whereas when bacteria respond in an adaptive manner, chemotaxis is dominated by a bias in the motion. In the adaptive case, favorable drift occurs together with favorable accumulation. We derive our results from detailed simulations and a variety of analytical arguments. In particular, we introduce a new coarse-grained description of chemotaxis as biased diffusion, and we discuss the way it departs from older coarse-grained descriptions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 85 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 4%
United Kingdom 2 2%
France 1 1%
Spain 1 1%
Canada 1 1%
Unknown 77 91%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 23 27%
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 19%
Professor > Associate Professor 15 18%
Student > Master 8 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 13 15%
Unknown 5 6%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Physics and Astronomy 30 35%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 23 27%
Engineering 6 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Environmental Science 3 4%
Other 10 12%
Unknown 8 9%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 05 December 2011.
All research outputs
#15,175,718
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,528
of 8,961 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#156,363
of 246,298 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#75
of 133 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,961 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 246,298 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 133 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.