It is well
documented that nutrient availability and consumption rates determine the
energy balance of an organism and in turn may determine the future of a species
in any given environment. In oligotrophic habitats, such as the open ocean, many microorganisms move with the assistance of the currents
whilst microorganisms have the ability to swim independently, allowing them to find
nutrients more easily. However, this is resulted in being forced to transform
the energy they absorb efficiently into motional energy and is not without cost
(Di Salvo & Condat, 2012). Taylor & Stocker (2012) noted that motile
marine bacteria spend a considerable fraction of their metabolic budget on
locomotion and that they swim at an optimal swimming speed that takes into
account the uptake benefit of chemotaxis and the cost of locomotion.
For their
study, Di Salvo and Condat (2012) based their work on the Brownian motion
concept (also known as pedesis; the random motion of particles suspended in a
fluid resulting from their collision with the quick atoms or molecules in the
gas or liquid) and that of Schweitzer's et
al., (1998) concept that Brownian particles have the ability to take up
energy from the environment to store it in an internal depot and to convert
internal energy into kinetic energy. However, as they were only interested in
the relation between energy absorption and speed, variables were slightly
altered to consider only the microorganism’s trajectory and run-phase,
neglecting the effect of Brownian noise (as it does not affect the speed of the
microorganism; Schweitzer's et al., 1998).
It was
noted that various chemotactic patterns have been identified in the last decade
with swimming speeds of several hundreds of μm/s being recorded in such bacteria
as Thiovulum majus, Shewanella putrefaciens and Pseudoalteromonas haloplanktis (Fenchel,
1994; Barbara & Mitchell, 2003), with the majority of speeds being
discovered in hyperthermophilic archaea such as Methanocaldococcus jannaschii and M. villosus (Herzog & Wirth, 2012). More recently the discovery
of Vibrio alginolyticus responding to
chemical gradients by executing a three-step swimming pattern (forward,
reverse, and flick) has been responded with raising interest in this area of
research (Xie et al., 2011).
Di Salvo and
Condat (2014) hypothesised that because a sizable part of the microorganisms’ energetic
budget must be allocated to locomotion, they assumed that some fast-swimming
microorganisms may increase their nutrient absorption by increasing their speed
velocity.
Results showed
that even modest increases in nutrient absorption lead to a significant
increase of the speed velocity, summarising that their conclusion had shown
that fast-moving microorganisms can considerably increase its swimming speed by
taking advantage of the advective (horizontal movement) uptake of nutrients. Even
though the advection-dependent uptake may be relatively small compared to diffusive
uptake, the additional energy can be more efficiently converted into mechanical
power (Di Salvo & Condat, 2014).
References
Barbara,
G.M., & Mitchell, J.G. (2003). 'Marine bacterial organisation around
point-like sources of amino acids' FEMS
Microbiol. Ecol. 43, 99–109.
Di Salvo,
M.E., & Condat, C.A. (2014). 'Enhancement of microbial motility due to
speed-dependent nutrient absorption' Phys.
Biol. 11 016004 doi:10.1088/1478-3975/11/1/016004.
Fenchel, T. (1994).
'Motility and chemosensory behavior of the sulfur bacterium Thiovulum majus' Microbiol. 140, 3109–3116.
Herzog, B.,
& Wirth, R. (2012). 'Swimming behavior of selected species of
archaea' Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 78, 1670–1674.
Institute
of Physics. (2007). Einstein Year –
Brownian motion [on-line]. Available at:
http://www.einsteinyear.org/facts/brownian_motion/ [15.10.2014].
Schweitzer,
F., Ebeling, W., & Tilch, B. (1998). 'Complex Motion of
Brownian Particles with Energy Depots' Phys.
Rev. Lett. 80, 5044.
Taylor,
J.R., & Stocker, R. (2012). 'Trade-Offs of Chemotactic Foraging in
Turbulent Water' Science 338, 675;
DOI: 10.1126/science.1219417DOI: 10.1126/science.1219417.
Xie. L.,
Altindal, T., Chattopadhyay, S., & Wu, X.L. (2011)
'Bacterial flagellum as a propeller and as a rudder for efficient chemotaxis' Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 108, 2246–2251.
Hi Dean
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying what Brownian motion was. I've been reading some papers on bacterial locomotion and have struggled to find a straightforward explanation. I think it's amazing that bacteria and archaea are able to track nutrients so closely. I wondered if the large metabolic cost of this chemotaxis means that there is a selection pressure for cells to be smaller since there is less energy available for growth? It would be an interesting extension to the study if they were to look at how shape and size of the bacterial and archaeal cells effected motility in terms of energy consumption.
Anita
Hi Anita,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. If response to whether there is selection pressure for cells to be smaller, in the paper by Di Salvo (the paper I was trying to focus on), there was a comment that stood out to me however, it was difficult to interpret it. However, since you have brought it up, I decided to look further into this.
The comment in their paper went as such: -
"Since the power spent against friction per unit mass is proportional to the inverse square radius of the microbe, the energy fraction dedicated to motion is generally bigger in the smaller microorganisms, which suggests that they have evolved in order to optimize the energetic resources used for motility (Di Salvo & Condat, 2014)."
Now at first, when it said, 'the energy fraction dedicated to motion is generally bigger', I wasn't quite sure if they meant that it took more energy to be mobile, or whether, because of their size it meant the energy use is bigger than what they metabolise, but then this would suggest that there was more energy available for growth as you have stated. This brought me to 'Kleiber's Law' (basically the bigger the mass, the bigger the metabolism). To be honest, I may still be reading it completely wrong because I am not considering the friction the microorganism has to face during locomotion.
(Any comments to help me out here is hugely appreciated).
Thanks,
Dean
Hi Dean
ReplyDeleteThanks for replying. I agree with your interpretation and I think that more energy is required when the cells are smaller because water is more viscous at microscopic scales and so more energy is needed to propel them through the water. Perhaps it is a trade-off situation between being small enough to have a SA/V ratio for efficient absorption of nutrients and being able to move through the water with minimal energy requirements. If it takes a lot of energy for the cells to propel themselves through the water then there isn't a lot left over for growth, so they stay small. It's an interesting idea though.
Hope that helps,
Anita