4.6 Article

Metachronal waves in the flagellar beating of Volvox and their hydrodynamic origin

期刊

出版社

ROYAL SOC
DOI: 10.1098/rsif.2014.1358

关键词

eukaryotic flagella; metachronal waves; microhydrodynamics; synchronization

资金

  1. EPSRC
  2. ERC Advanced Investigator grant [247333]
  3. Wellcome Trust
  4. European Research Council (ERC) [247333] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Groups of eukaryotic cilia and flagella are capable of coordinating their beating over large scales, routinely exhibiting collective dynamics in the form of metachronal waves. The origin of this behaviour possibly influenced by both mechanical interactions and direct biological regulation is poorly understood, in large part due to a lack of quantitative experimental studies. Here we characterize in detail flagellar coordination on the surface of the multicellular alga Volvox carteri, an emerging model organism for flagellar dynamics. Our studies reveal for the first time that the average metachronal coordination observed is punctuated by periodic phase defects during which synchrony is partial and limited to specific groups of cells. A minimal model of hydrodynamically coupled oscillators can reproduce semi-quantitatively the characteristics of the average metachronal dynamics, and the emergence of defects. We systematically study the model's behaviour by assessing the effect of changing intrinsic rotor characteristics, including oscillator stiffness and the nature of their internal driving force, as well as their geometric properties and spatial arrangement. Our results suggest that metachronal coordination follows from deformations in the oscillators' limit cycles induced by hydrodynamic stresses, and that defects result from sufficiently steep local biases in the oscillators' intrinsic frequencies. Additionally, we find that random variations in the intrinsic rotor frequencies increase the robustness of the average properties of the emergent metachronal waves.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据