Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-07T07:31:57.033Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Batchelor Prize LectureFluid dynamics at the scale of the cell

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 October 2016

Raymond E. Goldstein*
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics, Centre for Mathematical Sciences, Wilberforce Road, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB3 0WA, UK
*
Email address for correspondence: R.E.Goldstein@damtp.cam.ac.uk

Abstract

The world of cellular biology provides us with many fascinating fluid dynamical phenomena that lie at the heart of physiology, development, evolution and ecology. Advances in imaging, micromanipulation and microfluidics over the past decade have made possible high-precision measurements of such flows, providing tests of microhydrodynamic theories and revealing a wealth of new phenomena calling out for explanation. Here I summarize progress in four areas within the field of ‘active matter’: cytoplasmic streaming in plant cells, synchronization of eukaryotic flagella, interactions between swimming cells and surfaces and collective behaviour in suspensions of microswimmers. Throughout, I emphasize open problems in which fluid dynamical methods are key ingredients in an interdisciplinary approach to the mysteries of life.

Information

Type
Papers
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© 2016 Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. The Volvocine green algae. (a) Chlamydomonas reinhardtii, (b) Gonium pectorale, (c) Eudorina elegans, (d) Pleodorina californica, (e) Volvox carteri and (fVolvox aureus. C. reinhardtii (g) and V. carteri (h) held on glass micropipettes. Adapted from Goldstein (2015).

Figure 1

Figure 2. Discovery of cytoplasmic streaming. Illustrations from the monograph (a) by Bonaventura Corti (1774); (b) the entire aquatic plant Chara, (c) result of osmotically shocking the cell, in which the vacuole shrinks to reveal the vacuolar membrane (tonoplast) and (d) a depiction of the continuous circulation of the cytoplasm from one end of each internodal cell to the other and back. Images courtesy of the British Library. (e) Digital image of Chara.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Structure of internodal cells of Chara corallina and flow measurements. (a) The entire plant. (b) Bidirectional helical boundary conditions on the flow distinguish two indifferent zones ($\text{IZ}_{\pm }$). (c) Cross-section showing theoretical longitudinal velocity profile (colours) and in-plane vortical flows. (d) Schematic cross-section of internodal cell. (e) Experimental set-up for magnetic resonance velocimetry (MRV). (f) MRV measurements of longitudinal flow in three successive regions along cell. (g) Average of the measurements in (f), rotated so indifferent zones coincide. (h) Theoretical velocity profile corresponding to (g). Reproduced with permission from van de Meent, Tuval & Goldstein (2008) and van de Meent et al. (2010).

Figure 3

Figure 4. Microfluidic set-up to study a sheared vesicle. (a) A hemispherical vesicle (grey) is adhered to the base of a microfluidic chamber and subjected to shear flow. Confocal imaging of $L_{o}$ phase vesicle with $L_{d}$ domains (b) and tracking of (c) gel domains in $L_{d}$ background and (d) $L_{d}$ domains in $L_{o}$ background at gel apex. (e) Two-dimensional flow fields from particle image velocimetry (PIV) at heights $z/R=0.26,0.47,0.71$ above chamber base. (f) Confocal images at same heights, showing fluorescent microspheres (green) inside vesicle (red). (g) Theoretical velocity fields corresponding to positions shown in (e). Reproduced from Honerkamp-Smith et al. (2013).

Figure 4

Figure 5. Velocity fields inside and outside a sheared vesicle. (a) Experimental and (b) theoretical interior flows are in excellent agreement. Exterior flows (c) exhibit closed streamlines, consistent with the circulation of phase-separated domains seen from confocal imaging (d). Arrows indicate flow directions. Reproduced from Honerkamp-Smith et al. (2013).

Figure 5

Figure 6. Buckling instability of single actin filaments in a cross-channel flow. (a) Microfluidic set-up, in which an actin filament is held at the intersection of rectangular channels by adjusting the pressure difference $\unicode[STIX]{x0394}P$. (b) Velocity profile in a horizontal plane midway between bottom and top of chamber. (c) Contrast-enhanced image of an actin filament. (d) The function $h(s,t)$ describes the deviation from its mean orientation. (e)–(g) Montage of buckled filaments at $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F4}=-0.55,-1.9,-47$ and signs of the shear rate, where $-(+)$ indicates compressional direction is along $x(y)$. Times indicated are rescaled by $\dot{\unicode[STIX]{x1D6FE}}$. (h) Bifurcation plot showing end-to-end distance $\mathscr{L}$ relative to the contour length $L$ as a function of $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F4}$. Red dashed lines shows theoretical bifurcation points for modes indicated, and red arrows show values of $|\unicode[STIX]{x1D6F4}|$ associated with images in (e)–(g). Grey band represents noise floor. Reproduced from Kantsler & Goldstein (2012).

Figure 6

Figure 7. Self-organisation of cytoplasmic streaming. Ingredients in mathematical model are: (a) preferential orientation away from direction $\boldsymbol{d}$ to minimize curvature energy, (b) alignment with flow is stable with $+$ end downstream, but unstable if it is upstream (c) and (d) filament friction against cell wall competes with drag from cargo vesicles. (e) Six panels show time evolution of streaming, where colour indicates longitudinal component of the vector $\boldsymbol{P}$ (purple for $P_{z}>0$, green for $P_{z}<0$, brightness increases with magnitude), and indifferent zones are white lines separating up- and downwardly directed streaming. Arrows indicate streamlines, with flow from the thin end to thick end. Reproduced from Woodhouse & Goldstein (2013).

Figure 7

Figure 8. The eukaryotic flagellum. (a) A Chlamydomonas cell body (green), eyespot (orange), basal bodies (B1 and B2) of the trans and cis flagella and filaments connecting them. (b) Cross-sectional structure of the flagellum, with the ‘$9+2$’ arrangement of microtubule doublets. (c) Key molecular motors connecting to the microtubules. Reproduced from Wan, Leptos & Goldstein (2014).

Figure 8

Figure 9. Stochastic dynamics of Chlamydomonas flagella. (a,b) Top images are processed video frames during noisy synchronous beating (a) and drift (b). Middle image in (a) shows small interrogation windows for left (L) and right (R) flagella. Lower panels in (a,b) show time series of the signals $X_{L},X_{R}$ in those windows. (c) Phase difference $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}$ versus time, during which appear periods of noisy synchrony, phase slips and drifts. Inset shows instantaneous frequencies of flagella before, during and after a drift period. Adapted from Polin et al. (2009).

Figure 9

Figure 10. Time-averaged flow field around freely swimming Chlamydomonas and bead-spring model. (a) Experimental flow field, with streamlines (red) and schematic of cell body (green). (b) Theoretical flow field from three-Stokeslet model. (c) Decay of velocity field in various directions from cell. (d,e) Mechanism of elastohydrodynamic synchronisation in bead-spring model, as discussed in text. Reproduced from Drescher et al. (2010a).

Figure 10

Figure 11. Antiphase synchronisation in the mutant ptx1. (a) Time series of phase difference $\unicode[STIX]{x1D6E5}$ and (b) instantaneous beat frequency (b). (c) Single-cell and (d) multicell average phase portraits in the IP and AP states. Reproduced from Leptos et al. (2013).

Figure 11

Figure 12. Experimental test of hydrodynamically driven synchronization. (a,b) Set-up, with two cells held on micropipettes whose separation and orientation can be adjusted. (c) Phase difference versus time at various intercell separations. (d) Fluctuations about synchrony at various separations. (e) Probability distribution functions of fluctuations and scaling collapse, where $L=d/\ell$, consistent with hydrodynamic coupling. Reproduced from Brumley et al. (2014).

Figure 12

Figure 13. Flagellar beating and orbiting Stokeslets. (a) Results of fitting the measured instantaneous velocity field around a single flagellum to that of a Stokeslet. (b) The fitted Stokeslet position (red dots) throughout the average flagellar beat cycle. (c) Stokeslet magnitude as a function of time during the beat period $T$. Reproduced from Brumley et al. (2014).

Figure 13

Figure 14. Quadriflagellates. In different species the flagella are arranged in one of two possible configurations (types I, II). Observed patterns of actuation include (a) the trot, (b) pronk, (c) rotary and (d) transverse gallops, as indicated by coloured arrows in (ad). In each panel, the coloured bars depict time series of beat phases. Reproduced from Wan & Goldstein (2016).

Figure 14

Figure 15. Waltzing Volvox. (a) Images using dual-view apparatus: (i) overlaid temporal sequence showing orbiting motion in bound state, (ii) side view and (iii) top view of bound state with streamlines from PIV, (iv) cluster of colonies. (b) Calculational geometry of two downward-pointing Stokeslets and (c) two nearby corotating colonies. (d) Infalling trajectories compared to model. Inset shows orbital frequency as a function of colony rotation frequency and theoretical fit. Adapted from Goldstein (2015).

Figure 15

Figure 16. Flow field around a colony of Volvox carteri. (a) Residual magnitude, velocity vector field and streamlines after subtraction of fitted Stokeslet. (b) Velocity magnitude as a function of distance from centre of colony. Data (blue circles) averaged over 19 colonies (black dots), fitted average Stokeslet (dashed green line). Deviations from a pure Stokeslet appear for $r/R<5$ and are captured by the addition of a source doublet and a stresslet (red solid line). (c) Vertical section of the flow field through the colony centre. Forward–backward asymmetry arises from stresslet component. Reproduced from Drescher et al. (2010a).

Figure 16

Figure 17. Flows around freely swimming E. coli. Average flow field far from surfaces (ad) and near chamber surface (dh). Streamlines indicate the local direction of flow, and the logarithmic colour scheme indicates flow-speed magnitudes. (a) Measured flow field in swimming plane; inset shows anterior–posterior asymmetry close to the cell. (b) Best-fit force dipole flow and (c) residual of fit. (d) Radial decay of the flow speed from centre of cell body in different directions. (e) As in (a), but for bacteria swimming $2~\unicode[STIX]{x03BC}\text{m}$ from chamber bottom. (f) Best-fit force dipole flow and (g) residuals of fit. (h) As in (d), but now showing the $r^{-3}$ decay of the flow speed. Reproduced from Drescher et al. (2011).

Figure 17

Figure 18. Chlamydomonas surface scattering. (a) Upper panels: images from high-speed video (with time indicated) showing a wild-type cell encountering a surface and reorienting through contact interactions. Flagella are highlighted in lower panels. (b) As in (a), but for the ‘move backward only’ mutant. Scale bar is $20~\unicode[STIX]{x03BC}\text{m}$. (c) Conditional probability distributions for wild type, mbo1, short- and long-flagella mutants. (d) Scattering probability distributions shows how cilia length and swimming gait determine details of inelastic scattering. (e) Illustration of the scattering and trapping mechanisms. Reproduced from Goldstein (2015).

Figure 18

Figure 19. Collective behaviour in a bacterial suspension. PIV map of velocity field in a suspension of B. subtilis, showing vortices on scales large compared to individual bacteria. Adapted from Dombrowski et al. (2004).

Figure 19

Figure 20. Confinement of a bacterial suspension. (a) A drop of bacterial suspension in a matrix of mineral oil. (b) Indication of bulk circulation in a drop, viewed from below. (c) PIV flow field in drop, with enlargement of boundary region showing edge current. Reproduced from Wioland et al. (2013). (d,e) Method for determining cellular orientation inside drop. Brightfield image with cell membrane (red at time $t=0$ and blue at $t=0.2$  s) and flagella (green at $t=0.1$  s) (d) Cell at the oil–water interface both points and moves to the top left corner. (e) Cell in bulk is pointing to the top left corner while moving overall in the opposite direction. (Scale bars: drop images, $10~\unicode[STIX]{x03BC}\text{m}$; individual bacteria, $5~\unicode[STIX]{x03BC}\text{m}$.) Reproduced from Lushi et al. (2014).

Figure 20

Figure 21. Coupled bacterial vortices. (a) Microfluidic lattice in the regime of narrow connecting gaps promoting antiferromagnetic order. (b) Close-up of nearby domains and PIV velocity field. (c) Schematic of edge and bulk flows near a gap. (d) Lattice model of vortices and pillars in colour coded in antiferromagnetic state, with couplings indicated by solid and dashed lines. (eh) The ferromagnetic case at large gaps. Reproduced from Wioland et al. (2016b).